HomeMy WebLinkAbout6985_CCv0001.pdf RESOLUTION NO. 6985
.A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDLANDS CERTIFYING
THAT THE CITY OF REDLANDS HAS REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED THE
INFORMATION IN THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE UPPER
SANTA ANA WASH LAND MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN, AND
ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF CEQA FINDINGS AND FACTS, A STATEMENT OF
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2010-3-A;
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NOS. 948, 949, 950, 951, 952 AND 964 AND ASSOCIATED
RECLAMATION PLANS; AND STREET VACATION NO. 153 FOR THE PROPOSED
MINING OPERATIONS OF ROBERTSON'S READY MIX AND CEMEX CONSTRUCTION
MATERIALS PACIFIC, LLC WITHIN THE SANTA ANA RIVER WASH AREA
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Redlands, for this City Council's
proposed approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2010-3-A; Conditional Use Permit Nos.
948, 949, 950, 951, 952 and 964, and associated Reclamation Plans; and Street Vacation No. 153
(collectively,the"Mining Projects") for the proposed mining operations of Robertson's Ready
Mix and Cemex Construction Materials Pacific, LLC within the Santa Ana River Wash area, as
follows:
Section I The City Council hereby certifies that, as a Responsible Agency under the
California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), the City Council has reviewed and considered-
the
onsideredthe information contained in the Final Environmental Impact Report("FEIR")prepared and
approved by the San Bernardino Valley Water Conservation District in the district's capacity as
lead agency under CEQA, for the project commonly known as the"Upper Santa Ana River
Wash Land Management and Conservation Plan,"before considering approval of the Mining
Projects.
Section 2. Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15096(h), and for purposes of
compliance with CEQA for those significant effects of the Mining Projects identified in the FEIR
that are within the jurisdiction of the City of Redlands, the City Council hereby adopts the
"CEQA Findings and Statement of Facts for the Upper Santa Ana River Wash Land
Management and Habitat Conservation Plan Project"prepared and approved by the San
Bernardino Valley Water Conservation District, in the form attached hereto as Exhibit-A," as
the City of Redlands' Statement of Findings and Facts in connection with the City's approval of
the Mining Projects.
Section 3. Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines sections 15043, 15093 and 15096(h),
the City Council hereby adopts the"Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Upper Santa
Ana River Wash .and Management and Habitat Conservation Plan Project" prepared by the San
Bernardino Valley Water Conservation District, in the forrn attached hereto as Exhibit "B," as
the City of Redlands' Statement of Overriding Considerations in connection with the City's
approval of the of the Mining Projects.
Section 4, Pursuant to State C Guidelines section 15097, the City Council
hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program,prepared by the San Bernardino
Valley Water Conservation District, in the form attached hereto as E: Mbit'IC,"in connection
AApith the Cit-ys approval of the Mining Projects, Each of the mitigation measures identified in
the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program which apply to significant effects of the
Mining Projects identified in the FEIR that are within the jurisdiction of the City of Redlands
shall be conditions of approval of the Mining Projects, and shall be monitored and enforced
through the City's development entitlement process.
Section 5. Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines sections 15075 and 15097(i),the City
Council hereby directs City staff to file a Notice of Determination with the Clerk of the County
of San Bernardino.
Section 6. Section 21081.6(a)(2) of the. Public Resources Code and CEQA Guidelines
Section 15091(e) require that this City Council specify the location of the custodian of the
documents or other materials that constitute the record upon which this City Council's decision
is based. The custodian of the documents or other material which constitute the record of
proceedings upon which the City's decision is based is the City of Redlands' Development
Services Department, located at 210 E. Citrus, Redlands,California,92373.
ADOPTED, SIGNED AND APPROVED this 3rd day of August,2010.
"C'
Mayor of City of Redlands
A`ITEST:
rN
City Clem
1, Sam Irwin. City Clerk of the. City of Redlands, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution
No. 6985 was duly adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 3rd day
of August, 2010 by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmernbers Harrison, Gallagher, Aguilar; Mayor Gilbreath
NOES: None
Al SENT T: Councilmember Bean
ABSTAIN: None
x
Barn 1 in,
City Clerk-,
2
..............
RESOLUTION NO. 6985
EXHIBIT i !
STATEMENT T TIDING AND FACTS
EXHIBIT 'B'
STATEMENT T CSF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS
EXHIBIT 'C'
MITIGATION ONITO I AND REPORTING
PROGRAM
EXHIBIT A
CEQA FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF FACTS
FOR THE UPPER SANTA ANA RIVER WASH LAND MIANAGEMENT AND
HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN PROJECT
SECTION I, INTRODUCTION
1.1 Statutory Requirements for Findings
The California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) (Pub. Res, Code §§ 21000, et seq.)
and the State CEQA Guidelines(Guidelines)(14 Cal.Code Regs §§ 15000, et seq.)promulgated
thereunder,require that the environmental impacts of a project be examined before a project is
approved. Specifically,regarding findings,Guidelines Section 15091 provides:
(a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been
certified which identifies one or more signcant environmental effects of the project unless the
public agency makes one or more written,f ridings for each of those significant effects,
accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are:
1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the
final IR;
2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another
public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been
adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency;
and
3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make
infeasible the mitigation treasures or project alternatives identified in tete final FIR.
(b) Thefindings required by subdivision(a)shall be supported by substantial
evidence in the record.
(c) Thefinding in subdivision(a)(2)shall not be made if the agency making the
finding has concurrent jurisdiction with another agency to deal with identiftedfeasible
mitigation measures or alternatives, Thefinding in subdivision(a)(3)shall describe the specific
reasons for rejecting identified mitigation measures and project,alternatives.
(d) When making the findings required in subdivision(a)(1), the agency shall also
a(hipt a program for reporting on or monitoring the changes which it has either required in the
project or made a condition of approval to avoid or substantially lessen significant
environmental effects. These measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions,
agreements, or other measures.
2287/015N2-0013
(e) The public agency shall speeij the location and custodian of the documents or
other materials which constitute, the record of the proceedings upon which its decision as based.
(f) A Statement made pursuant to Section 1.5093 does coat substittate for the findings
required by this section,
The"changes or alterations"referred to in Section 1509 1(a)(1) above, that are required
in, or incorporated into,the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects-
of the project,may include a wide variety of measures or actions as set forth.. in Guidelines
Section 15370,including;
(a): Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an
actiort
(b) Minimizing izing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its
implementation,'
(c) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the impacted
environment;
(d) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance
operations during the life of the action; and
(e) Compensating far the impact by replacing or providing substitute_resources or
environments.
Having received,reviewed and considered the Final Environmental Impact Report for the
Upper Santa.Ana liver Wash Land Management And habitat Conservation Plan,Project(the
"Project"or"Wash Plan"),as well as all other information in the record of proceedings on this
matter, the following;Findings of Facts (``Findings") are hereby adopted by the Board.of
Directors (the"Board")of the San Bernardino Valley Water Conservation District(the
"District"). The-se Findings set forth the environmental basis for current and subsequent
discretionary actions to be undertaken by the District and other responsible agencies for the
implementation of the proposed Project.
1.2 Record of Proceedings
For purposes of CEQA and the findings set forth herein, the record of proceedings for the
District's decision,through its Board, on the Wash flan Final.Environmental Impact Report.
(`Final Elly.")consists of, among other items: (a)matters of common knowledge to the Board,
including, but not limited to, information regarding the District's fiscal statics and applicable
federal, state and local lawns and regulations; and(b) the following documents which are in the
custody of the District:
Notice of preparation,notices of availability; and notices of completion, which were
issued by the District in conjunction with the proposed Project,
941213,04H a 11/07AA -
• The Final EIR,dated November 2008,which includes all written comments
submitted by agencies or members of the public during the public comment period on
the Draft EIR and responses to those comments, and all of the documents referenced
therein,
• The Draft EIR dated March 2008,and all of the documents referenced therein;
• The Mitigation onit ring and Reporting Program("MMRP");
• All records regarding the District's consideration of the proposed Project and the
Draft EIR., the Final EIR, and the 1MlVlRP, including but not limited to staff reports,
transcripts and minutes of relevant meetings,including meetings of the Wash Plan
Task Force and its component Working Groups
• All findings,the statement of overriding consideration,resolutons and ordinances
adopted by the District in connection with the proposedProject,and all documents
cited or referred to therein,
• All final reports, studies,memoranda,reaps,correspondence,and all planning
documents,prepared by the District,or its consultants,or responsible or trustee
agencies,with respect to: (a)the District's compliance with CE PA.; (b)development
of the proposed Project site; or c)the District's action on the proposed Project;
• All documents submitted to the District by agencies or members of the public in
connection with development of the proposed Project, including comments to the
Draft EIR.and responses thereto;
• All documents compiled by the District in connection with the study of the proposed
Project and its alternatives;
• All presentation materials related to the Project;
• The testimony and evidence presented at the public meetings or study sessions on the
proposed Project;
• The reports and technical memoranda included or referenced in the Responses to
Comments in the Final EIR;
• All documents, studies,EIRs,or other materials incorporated by reference in the
Draft EIR, and the Final EIR;and
• All other documents constituting the record pursuant to Public Resources Code
section 21167.6.
22870315042-0013
9412t3aiBa117diiF3 -3-
1.3 Custodian and Location of Records
The documents and other materials which constitute the administrative,record for the
District's actions related to the proposed Project are located at 1630 Redlands Boulevard, Suite
A,Redlands,CA 92373-8032. The General Manager of the District is the custodian of the
administrative record for the Project. Copies of these documents,which constitute the record of
proceedings,will be available upon request at the offices of the District. This information is
provided in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(a)(2)and Guidelines
Section 15091(e).
1.4 Incorporation of Final EIR Analyses
A full explanation of the environmental findings and conclusions set forth in these
Findings can be found in the Final EIR. These Findings hereby incorporate by reference the
discussion and analysis in the Final EIR regarding the Project's impacts and mitigation measures
designed to address those impacts. In making these Findings,the Boardratifies,adopts and
incorporates the analysis,explanation,determinations and conclusions in the Final EIR into these
Findings.
SECTION 2: UPPER SANTA ANA RIVER WASH LAND MTANAGEMENT AND
HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN(PROPOSED PROJECT)
The proposed Project is a multifaceted, multi-agency, and multi-property owner project,
namely the adoption of the Wash Plan, Full implementation of the Project will require
subsequent preparation of a Habitat Conservation Plan(HCP)pursuant to the Federal
Endangered Species Act(FESA) and the California Endangered Species Act(CESA) as well as
exchanges of land between various participating entities.
2.1 Project Location and Site Status
The Planning Area is located in the eastern valley portion of San Bernardino County,
mostly within the Cities of Highland and Redlands,but also partially within County jurisdiction.
Additionally, the Bureau of Land Management("BLM")manages Federal land within the
Planning Area.The Planning Area consists of a total of 4,467 acres bounded by Greenspot Road
to the north and east, Alabama Street to the west, and the Santa Ana River Wash to the south.
The Planning Area currently includes: (1) water conservation operations by the District;
(2)flood control operations by the San Bernardino County Flood Control District(``SI CFCD");
(3) aggregate mining operations by Cemex and Robertson's Ready Mix ("Robertson's"); (4)
habitat conservation areas,such as the Woollystar Preservation Area and the District
Conservation Easement; (5) undeveloped natural habitat; (6) arterial highways and roads; (7)
agricultural areas; and(8) undesignated public ownership areas. The locations of Existing Land
Uses are shown in Figure 3.2 of the Draft EIR,and existing land ownership is shown in figure
3.3.
22q1101 50421(01'A
141213,04B a I I Mffig -4-
2.2 Project Objectives
The overarching Project objective is to balance the ground-disturbing activities of
aggregate raining,recreational activities, water conservation, and other public services with
quality, natural habitat for endangered,threatened, arta sensitive species. In other words,the
goal of the project is to promote ars environmentally,economically,and socially beneficial
balance of land, mineral,:and water resources within the Planning Area. As such,the Project will
coordinate and manage the present and future activities by multiple parties in the multiple
jurisdictions comprising the Planning Area. Specific=objectives of the Project include:
• Ensure the continued ability of the;District to replenish the Bunker Trill Groundwater
Basin with native Santa Ana River water using existing and potential future water
recharge facilities in the Planning area;
• Tonsure the continued ability of the SBC FCD to protect land and property by
managing the floodwaters of the Santa Ana River and its local tributaries (Mill Creek,
Plunge Creek,and City Creek);
• Set aside-and maintain habitat for sensitive, threatened,or endangered species
populations in the Planning Area,and prevent colonization of the Planning,Area by
non-native plants and animals,all serving as mitigation;for impacts from other
aspects of the Project such as raining and the designation of areas for future
roadways or eater conservation facilities;
• Accommodate the relocation and expansion of aggregate raining quarries, to help
ensure long-terra availability of high quality aggregate reserves located within the
Planning Area for locall and;regional use, consistent with the MRZ-2 designation for
reserves in this area, and to do so on land adjacent to existing quarries, that is largely
already disturbed,
• Accommodate arterial roads and highways to provide safe modes of travel; and
• Provide;trails for public enjoyment of the existing environment.
2.3 Project Description
The planning Area is approximately 6 miles long from cast to west and,at its widest part
2 miles wide from north to south. The eastern border of the 4,467-acre Planning Area is
Greenspot Road. The southern border generally follows the southern embankment of the Santa
Arra River. Across the river and south of the Planning Area are the City of Redlands Municipal
Airport and other urban and agricultural uses;including the Redlands Wastewater Treatment
Facility. The western border is Alabama Street, which is adjacent to the San Bernardino
International Airport west of the Planning Area.The northern border has urban and public
facility uses,along with some vacant land.,, and Greenspot.load within the City of highland.
Three paved roadways and a freeway cross the Planning Area from north to south: Alabama
Street;Orange Street-Boulder Avenue, Greenspot Road, and State Route 3 (SR-30),
2287JOI 5042-0013
9412110414 1/07?08 -
The Planning Area is an alluvial plain.As such, it provides excellent geological
conditions for groundwater recharge. Those geological conditions also provide excellent
aggregate resources for construction materials(e.g., gravel and sand). Additionally, the Planning
Area:provides habitat for federally listed endangered species and Federal and/or State listed
sensiti
9. A land exchange between the S CFCD and Robertson's, which is the subject of this
IR.-
The details of each of the nine( )components of the Wash Plan are described in detail in
the Final EIR,which is incorporated herein by this reference, More specifically,Draft EER
Section 3,7;2 describes the discretionary actions within the Planning Area covered by the Draft
EER and enumerates the actions to be taken by individual agencies,local public entities,utility
districts,private owners,and federal entities;
,4 Agencies Having Jurisdiction/Potential Discretionary Actions
While the District is the Lead Agency for the Project, as its jurisdiction includes the
greatest percentage of the Planning area, several public agencies Have jurisdiction over aspects
of the Project,
Lead Agency
• San Bernardino Valley Water Conservation District(tire"District").
Responsible Agencies
• City of Highland;
o Community Development Department.
o Public Works Department.
• City of Redlands.
o Community Development Department.
o Municipal Utilities Department(" Ulf").
o Public Works Department.
• County of San Bernardino.
o Land Use Services Department
o Flood Control District ("SHCFC'D")
• U.S. Department of Interior.
o Bureau of Land Management("BUM").
o Fish and Wildlife Service("US S").
Trustee and Responsible Agencies
iw 7f 5(i 2.0013
141277.0413 aF 7AP108 -7-
• California Department of Fish and Game("CDFG").
• California Department of Environmental Quality, South Coast Air Quality Management
District("SCAQMD")
• California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region.
• California Department of Water Resources, Southern California Division.
• California Department of Conservation, Office of Mine Reclamation.
• California Department of Transportation.
Other Agencies
• San Bernardino International Airport.
• East Valley Water District("EVWD").
• U.S. Department of Defense,U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
• Southern California Edison.
• Metropolitan Water District of Southern California.
Draft EM Table 3.1 lists the discretionary actions within the Planning Area covered by
the EIR and enumerates the actions to be taken by individual agencies, local public entities,
utility districts, private owners, and federal entities. Table 31 is incorporated herein by this
reference.
2.5 Project Alternatives
CEQA Guidelines §15126 states that an EIR should describe a reasonable range of
alternatives to the project,or the location to the project,that would feasibly attain most of the
basic objectives of the project,but avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of
the project after mitigation,and-,.valuate the comparative merits of the respective alternatives.
Here, significant effects were found to occur to aesthetics,air quality, biological resources,
mineral resources, and traffic. The Project EIR considers four alternatives,each of which is
designed to either avoid or lessen one or more of these identified significant impacts. The four
alternatives are: (1) no project alternative; (2)relocation of future mining activities; (3) maintain
cxisting rate of mining but in proposed quarries; and(4)reduced mining production rate, and
proposed quarry alternative. Findings regarding the rejection of Project alternatives as infeasible
pursuant to Public Resources Code'§ 21081 and Guidelines 15091 are detailed in Section 8
below.
An alternative location to the project as a whole was not considered given the scope in
terms of acreage of the Planning Area, and the range of activities covered within the Project
description. Still, the alternatives do examine a series of configurations and varying locations for
'22M0150IZ-001 3
941213 0413 a I I 107M
mining activities within the Planning Area, and in this sense,do examine alternative locations for
various components of the Project.
SECTION 3: GENERAL FINDINGS
The District hereby finds asfollows:
• The District is the"Lead Agency" for the proposed Project evaluated in the Final EIR;
• The Draft EIR and Final EIR were prepared in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA
Guidelines;
• The District has independently reviewed and analyzed the Draft EIR;and the Final EIR,and
these documents reflect the independent judgment of the Board and the District;
• The District's review of the Draft EIR and the Final EIR is based upon CEQA,and the
CEQA Guidelines;
• A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program(MMRP)has been prepared for the
proposed project, which the District has adopted or made a condition of approval of the
proposed project. That MMRP is incorporated herein by reference and is considered part of
the record of proceedings for the proposed project;
•- The MMRP designates responsibility and anticipated dming for the implementation,of
mitigation, As noted in the MMRP,the District and various public agencies will serve as the
IMMRP monitors;
• In determining whether the proposed project has a significant impact on the environment, and
in adopting these Findings pursuant to Section 21081 of CEQA, the District has complied
with CEQA Sections 21081.5 and 21082,2-,
• The impacts of the proposed project have been analyzed to the extent feasible at the time of
certification of the Final EIR;
• The District reviewed the comments received on the Draft EIR and Final EIR and the
responses thereto and has determined that neither the comments received nor the responses to
such comments add significant new information regarding environmental impacts of the
proposed Project, The District has based its actions on full appraisal of all viewpoints,
including all comments received up to the date of adoption of these Findings,concerning the
environmental impacts identified and analyzed in the Final EIR;
• The responses to the comments, on the Draft EIR, which are contained in the Final ETR,
clarify and amplify the analysis in the Draft EIR;
• The District made no decisions that constituted an irretrievable commitment of resources
toward the proposed Project prior to certification of the Final ER, nor has the District
previously committed to a definite course of action with respect to the proposed Project; and
2297101%12-000
941213 048 a I TPOWDS
Copies of all the documents incorporated by reference in the Pine FIRarcand have been
available upon request at all relevant times t the offices of the District,custodian of record
for such documents or other materials.
Having received,reviewed, and considered all information and documents in the record,
the District hereby conditions the proposed Project and finds as stated in these Findings.
SECTIO 4: UFFE TS DETERMINED TO BE NOT SIGNIFICANT OR LESS THAN
SIGNIFICANT
The Beard finds that,based upon substantial evidence in the record,the following
impacts associated with the proposed Project are less than significant and no mitigation is
required. In each potential_impact area., the respective EIR. analyses are incorporated as if fully
set forth therein.z
4.1. Aesthetics
4.1.1 Damage Scenic Resources within a State Scenic Highway
There are no designated State sonic highways in or adjacent to the Planning Area;
however, the City of Highland and theCounty of San Bernardino have designated certain
roadways within.the Planning Area as sonic resources. Even so, the Project activities will not
create or contribute to new or increased.impacts. Short-term near views of the Planning Area
from existing scenic roadways would remain similar to the existing condition with an overall
long-term improvement due to revegetation and recontouring of the mines. The District finch
that impacts are less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
4.1.2 Create a new source of substantial light or gyre, which would adversely affect
daytime or nighttime views in the area:
Except for aggregate mining expansion, the Project activities would,not create a new
source of substantial light or glare. As to aggregate ruining,existing lighting used for raining
operations would be moved to other locations as new portions of the Planning Area are rained.
However, vehicle Light sources would only illuminate the immediate alining areas, and most of
the light sources would be within the pit areas and below eye-level views. Nighttime views
would remain the same as they presently exist The District finds that impacts are less than
significant, and no mitigation is required-
t It should be noted that the Project E:IR typically analyzes potentially significant impacts i
relation to each of the nine Project components. While every potentially significant impact is
addressed in these Findings,each and every Project component is not discussed under each and
every potentially significant impact category$. Where a particular Project component is:not
discussed under a particular impact category, the District has found that the non-addressed
component's impacts are less than significant and no mitigation is necessary, The analysis
provided in the project EIR supports the District's findings in this regard and as is incorporated
herein.
217,A)IS 2-0Q1.3
94121104B at W710 _10-
4.2 Agricultural Resources
4.2.1 Conversion of State Designated Farmland
No Project activities would have a significant effect on the current 1.0 acre of
Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland,or Farmland of Statewide Importance in the Planning Area.
The District finds that impacts are less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
4.2.2 'Termination of Williamson Act Contracts
The Planing Area does not include any lands covered by an existing Williamson Act
contract. Therefore, the District finds that there is no Williamson Act contract impactassociated
with Project activities and no mitigation is required`
4.2.3 Conflict with an Existing Agricultural Zone
Because there are no existing agricultural zones located within the vicinity of the
Planning Area, there would be no impacts to any of the nine components of the Wash Plan
associated with conflicts with existing zoning for agricultural uses caused by the project. The
District finds that no impacts will occur, and no mitigation is required.
4.2.4 Conversion lon of'an Existing Agricultural Operation to a Non-Agricultural Use
Project activities would not cause the conversion of existing agricultural operations to
non-agricultural uses. Specifically,Project activities would not impact tie existing -acre citrus
grove-in the Planning,Area. The District finds that no impacts will occur,and nes mitigation is
required.
4.2.5 Cumulative Impacts
The proposed Project would not result in the conversion of farmland,or cumulative
development within the City of Highland,City of Redlands, or the County of San Bernardino,
and would therefore not contribute to a significant cumulative impact to agricultural operations
and resources. The District finds that no impacts will occur, and no mitigation is required..
4.3 Air Quality
4.3.1 Consistency with the Air Quality Management Plan (1`AQMP"
Although some changes in land use would occur(e,g, the expansion of aggregate
mining), the Project itself is not growth inducing and an increase in employment or population is
not exerted to occur as a result of Project activities. Therefore, the proposed uses of the
Planning,Area,have been included in growth projections for the Cities of Highland and Redlands,
which were subsequently used as input in development of the approved AQIMP, The proposed
project would be consistent with the AQMP and would not obstruct implementation of its
programs. The District finds that a less than significant impact associated with this activity
would occur and no mitigation is required.
22-18MI SM-00,3
4.3.2 Short-Term Construction Impacts
The Project does not propose any specific construction activities except with regard to
roadway modifications in connection with aggregate mining. However, total emissions that
would result from aggregate mining grading activities and from equipment exhaust under the
proposed construction scenario do not exceed SCAQMD thresholds. The District finds that
because there is no exceedance of established thresholds, there would be no significant impact
associated with this activity. No mitigation is required.
4.3.3 Long- erre Microscale(CO Hotspot)Impacts
A CO hotspot analysis is cumulative in nature in that it is based on the traffic study which
included vehicular trips from all present and future projects in the Project vicinity. Therefore,
the CO hot spot concentrations calculated at the intersections identified in Tables 4.3.1✓,and
4.3-M of the Draft EIR include the cumulative traffic effect. Based on the tables, the District
finds that no significant cumulative CO hotspot impacts would occur. No mitigation is required.
4.3.4 Health Risks from Project-Related Emission Impacts
With respect to all Project activities other than aggregate mining,no additional activities
are proposed that would utilize toxic chemicals or emit diesel exhaust beyond what is currently
occurring. Additionally, there are no proposed construction activities that would utilize toxic
chemicals. Because there is no potential for these Project activities to emit toxic chemicals, the
District finds that a less than significant impact associated with these activities would occur and
no mitigation is required.
With respect to aggregate mining,the mining operations would use petroleum products,
concrete admixtures, oils, fuels, greases, and other toxic substances in conjunction with their
operations, Any proposed use or disposal of toxic chemicals by the mining operations would be
required to comply with State and Federal handling regulations. Adherence to these regulations
would ensure that emissions of toxic substances remain below a level of significance. Therefore,
the District finds that a less than significant impact is expected to occur and no mitigation is
required.
4.3.5 Objectionable Odors
During construction, the various diesel-powered vehicles and equipment in use on the site
would create odors. SCAQMD Rule 402 dictates that air discharged from any source shall not
cause injury, nuisance,or annoyance to the health, safety, or comfort of the public. With the
exception of short-term construction-related odors (e.g., asphalt odors), the proposed activities
do not include uses that would generate objectionable odors. While the installation of asphalt
may generate odors, these odors are temporary and not likely to be noticeable beyond the project
boundaries. SCAQIVID Rule 1108 identifies standards regarding the application of asphalt,
Solid waste generated by the proposed activities would be collected by a contracted waste hauler,
ensuring that any odors resulting from onsite activities would be adequately managed, Long-
term objectionable odors are not expected to occur at the Planning Area. The District finds that
impacts ate less than significant. No mitigation is required.
22&7iM 5042-0013
9412 3,04B I I WAA 12-
4.3.6 Global Climate Change (Greenhouse Gas Emissions)
The methodology used in the Project EIR to analyze the Project's potential effect on
global warming includes a calculation of GH G emissions, Calculating GHC emissions is for
informational purposes,as there is no quantifiable emissions threshold. The Project's potential
for creating an impact on global warming is based on a comparative analysis of the project
against the emission reduction strategies contained in,the California Climate Action Team's
("CAT") Report to the Governor. Because the Project BIR determines that the proposed project
is compatible or consistent with the applicable CAT strategies, the District finds that the
Project's cumulative impact on global climate change is considered less than significant. No
mitigation is required.
4.4 Biological Resources
4A.1 Conflict With A Local Biological Policy or Ordinance
The Planning Area overlaps the land use jurisdiction of the City of Highland and the City
of Redlands. The City of Highland does not have an ordinance specifically preserving a
particular biological resource;however,in the City of Highland General Plan Update,the City
commits to the stewardship of the biological resources of the Valley. The City of Redlands 1995
General Plan contains three biological preservation policies germane to the proposed project:
Policy 7.21q.Support the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' efforts to establish a preserve
for the Santa Ana River woollystar as mitigation for habitat anticipated to be lost as a result of
construction in the Planning Area.
Polity 7.21r.Work with concerned agencies and organizations to preserve the slender-
horned spineflower,
Policy 7.21t.Coordinate aggregate resource extraction with habitat preservation and
protection of plant and animal species.
The proposed Project will comply with localbiological resource policies,as mitigation
measures are provided for anticipated impacts to all biological resources;furthermore, a Habitat
Conservation Plan would be established, and the Santa Ana River Woollystar Preservation Area
would be expanded., Therefore, as the proposed project would not conflict with local jurisdiction
policies for biological resources,the District finds that the impacts to local biological policies are
less than significant and no mitigation is required,
4.4.2 Conflict with Provisions of An Adopted Habitat Conservation Plan
The proposed project includes the establishment of a Habitat Enhancement Plan as
implemented through Mitigation Measures B10-I through B10-16 (discussed below in the
Significant and Unavoidable Impacts,Section), The Habitat Enhancement Plan establishes the
groundwork for the creation of a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP)that will be approved by the
ISS S. The Habitat Enhancement Plan,and eventually the HCP,will work in concert-with the
existing Woollystar Preservation Area ("WSPA")in,providing stewardship for the natural habitat
within the Planning Area. fn essence, the entire Project is consistent with the WSPA and will
22971015042,0013
911211044&11107108 -13-
augment the benefits it produces by creating more managed habitat within the Planning Area,
and creating contiguity of managed habitat areas. The District finds that no impacts will occur
and no mitigation is necessary.
4.5 Cultural Resources
4.5.1 Destruction of Unique Paleontological Resource
Because there are no paleontological resources located within the vicinity of the Planning
Area, and because sediment,;suitable for containing significant vertebrate paleontological
resources are absent, the District finds that there would be no impacts to any of the nine
components of the Wash Plan associated with directly or indirectly destroying a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geological site. No mitigation is required,
4.5.2 Substantial Adverse Change in the Significance of a Historical Resource
Currently, two historical,resources,the historic orchard complex (SBR-5526H)and
Greenspot Bridge(P36-016987),are located on the eastern portion of the Planning Area. In
general,Project activities do not involve construction and/or are not located near an identified
historical resource. Therefore,the District finds that no impacts will occur. Notably,as part of
the proposed project,the existing Greenspot Road Bridge will be avoided and preserved as a
component of a recreational trail plan proposed by this project.
Although there is a high sensitivity for buried cultural resources and a high possibility
that potential grave iter outside of formal cemeteries may be located within the Project's mining
areas following the Project land exchanges,existing law renders potential impacts less than
significant. If human remains are encountered during mining activities that could occur on the
District portion of the exchange, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no
further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and
dispositions pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be
notified of the find immediately. If the remains are determined to be prehistoric,the Coroner
will notify the Native American Heritage Commission(NAHQ,which will determine and notify
a Most Likely Descendant(MLD). With the permission of the,landowner or his/her authorized
representative,the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD shall complete the
inspection within 24 hours of notification by the NAHC. The MLD may recommend scientific
removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native
American burials. Thus, with adherence to State Health and Safety Code Section 7050,5, the
District finds that potential impacts to human remains buried outside of formal cemeteries would
be less than significant, and no mitigation measure would be required.
4.5.3 Human Remains
The,large number of archaeological sires identified by the Cultural Assessment Report
indicates that there is a high sensitivity for buried cultural resources. Furthermore,the large
number suggests the possibility that potential grave sites outside of formal cemeteries may be
located in the Planning Area. If human remains are encountered during mining,State Health and
Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no farther disturbance shall occur until the County
Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code
2297M[5042-000
941213.04 R a I MOMS -14-
Section 5097.98, The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains
are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the NAHC, which will determine and
notify a Most Likely Descendant(MLD). With the permission of the landowner or his/her
authorized representative,the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery,The MLD shall
complete the inspection within 24 hours of notification by the NAHC. The MLD may
recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items
associated with Native American burials. As adherence to State regulations is required for all
development, the District finds that no mitigation is required in the unlikely event human
remains are discovered on site.
4.5.4 Cumulative Cultural Resources
The proposed Project would not cause substantial adverse change to historical resources,
nor would it directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource. 2\4oreover, the
proposed project is not anticipated to disturb any human remains. The District finds that there
are no projects that would,in combination with the proposed project, result in any significant
impact to historical or paleontological resources or to human remains. No mitigation measures
are required beyond existing law(discussed below in the Mitigated to Less Than Significant
Levels Section).
4.6 Geology and Soils
4.6.1 Fault Rupture
Although the Planning Area is located in a seismically active region between two major
fault systems—the San Andreas and San Jacinto Faults—none of the existing or planned water
conservation or flood control facilities is located within the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zone("A-f'zone")established for either fault system;therefore, no potential fault rupture hazard
to these facilities would occur. As to water production activities, and trail and right-of-way
designations, such activities would not result in the development of any habitable structures, so
no fault rupture hazard would occur. As to aggregate mining,provisions of the A-l?Act prohibit
structures intended for human occupancy from being placed over the trace of the fault,and
structures must be set back,generally no closer than 50 feet to the fault. Mining activities are
more than 50 feet from the faults. No habitable mining structures would be located within that
portion of the AT zone located within the Planning Area; therefore,no fault rupture hazard
would occur, Overall, the District finds that no impacts would occur and no mitigation would be
necessary,
4.6.2 Ground Shaking
Because of the proximity of the Planning Area to two major faults,the Planning Area can
be expected to experience significant ground shaking within the Planning Area throughout the
lifetime of the project. While ground shaking resulting fromactivity on local faults would be felt
within the Planning Area, the nature of the existing and proposed uses, and the relatively limited
number of persons that may be on the site during any such activity would limit the significance
of any potential ground shaking impact. With respect to water conservation, flood control, and
22$7MI5W-f*J3 4:
941213,04Ba I!A)7/08
water production, no residential, commercial, or institutional use is proposed within the Planning
Area; therefore,there would be no substantial increase in the number of persons on the site.
With respect to aggregate mining, the presence of slopes in the Planning Area results in
the potential for loss,injury, or death associated with slope instability during a ground shaking
event. Although there are no residences located within current mining areas and proposed
expansions,mining workers would be present in the area and would be susceptible to injury or
death in the event of slope failure during a seismic event. However,mining operations are
required to comply with Occupational Health and Safety Administration(OHSA) and the Mine
Safety and Health Administration(MSHA). Compliance with OSHA and MSI A requirements
will ensure potential impacts to workers associated with quarry slope failure during a ground
shaking event remain less than significant.
Overall,because of the low density of human population within the Planning Area and
the lack of residential,commercial, or industrial development associated with the proposed
Project, and the requirements set forth by OSHA and MSHA for mining workers, the proposed
Project would not substantially increase the risk for injury, death or property damage resulting
from local ground shaking. The,project does not include the construction of new structures or
the reworking of old ones; therefore,the effects on persons and property resulting from a ground
shaking episode would not be significant.The continued adherence to seismic design and
construction standards for the aggregate processing plants within the Planning Area would
reduce potential ground shaking hazards for the project to a less than significant level. For all
these reasons,the Distriet finds that no impacts would occur and no mitigation would be
necessary.
4.6.3 Soil Erosion or Loss of Topsoil
The predominant soil within the Planning Area is Soboba stony loamy sand, 2 to 9
percent slopes (SpQ. This soil consists of excessively drained, nearly level to moderately
sloping soils formed on,alluvial fans from,granitic alluvium. Runoff from this soil is slow;
therefore, the potential for erosion is slight.
Nevertheless, some of the ProjecCs water conservation and flood control activities may
modify the existing floor of the Planning Area, The potential for natural erosion is likely to be
high in areas of moderately steep to steep slopes,little or no vegetative cover,loose to
unconsolidated sediments,and/or uncontrolled surface water runoff, The modification of
topography from water conservation and flood control activities may result in the removal of
surface vegetation and the creation of slopes,that may increase the potential for localized erosion.
However,with regard to water conservation, sediment resulting from localized erosion is
accumulated in the basins and is removed from the beds of the basins periodically and used for
maintenance of dikes, canals,and access roads. While maintenance activities may change in
location due to unforeseen circumstances, the frequency and methods of maintenance would not
change from existing operations.Furthermore, adherence totandard requirements would ensure
impacts associated with soil erosion remain less than significant. With regard to flood control,
the SBCFCD would not require additional maintenance, repairs, or construction work associated
with the Santa Ana Rivcr,Mill Creek, Plunge Creek, or City Creek as a result of the proposed
project. The District finds that impacts are less than significant, and no mitigation is necessary.
2287A)15042-001 3
44121IS4B a I VOW" -16-
Activities conducted under the aggregate nnining component of the proposed project
would result in the modification of topography resulting in the removal of surface vegetation,
and the creation of slopes that may increase the potential for localized erosion. The completion
of Seven Oaks Dara and the existence of flood control berms in the vicinity of ruined areas
greatly reduce and likely elintin to the potential for any significant natural runoff from these
areas.;Surface runoff draining into excavations would percolate rapidly into the porous alluvium
material. Slope revegetation within mined areas would aid in the prevention of any significant
erosion. Furthermore,existing mining operations are conducted under a general Construction
Activity Storm"mater Permit issued by the,Santa dna regional Water Quality Control Board
( Q )pursuant to National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES) regulations.
The Storm"Fater Pollution,Prevention Flan SWPPP)prepared for the existing operations
identifies Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize stormwater pollutants(including
sediment)from entering downstream water bodies. The Mine and Reclamation flans for the
Robertson's and Comex facilities identify actions that the mitre operators must implement to
limit or reduce erosion within areas under their control. Standard permit requirements and
erosion control measures are presently implemented; The District finds that impacts are less than
significant, and no mitigation is necessary.
4.6.E Landslide,Lateral Spreading,Subsidence,or Liquefaction
The topography in the Planning Area slopes relatively evenly from the east to west. Due
to the lack of any natural extreme variations in topography,outside of currently nnined areas,the
Cities of Redlands and Highland have not identified the Planning Area as beingsusceptible to
landslide/slope stability hazards. Current groundwater depths range from approximately 130 feet
below ,ground level in the western portion of the Planning Area to,approximately 100 feet below
ground level in the center portion of the Planning Area. While liquefaction is typically
considered more likely in areas where groundwater is within 50 feet of ground level,etre Cities of
Highland and Redlands have both designated the majority of the Planning Areaassusceptible to
liquefaction.
The District will not be increasing its amount of groundwater recharge in connection with,
the project,as compared to historical levels, and therefore the District finds that that the
District's continued groundwater spreading operations will not increase any liquefaction risk and
no mitigation is necessary.
Due to the high liquefaction susceptibility within the Planning Area,the owner /operators
of existing flood control . .,levees) activities and bridges/roadways would be required to
adhere to applicable design and engineering standards during the construction, operation,and
maintenance of these facilities. The District finds that such adherence would ensure
liquefaction-related impacts retrain less than.significant, and no mitigation is necessary.
The proposed project would increase the area mined, thereby increasing the potential for
localized liquefaction on reclaimed benches. However,because of the impermeability of
underlying native material on reclaimed benches, any such liquefaction would be localized,
limited in size, near the surface, and would not significantly affect the stability of nearby slopes,
or the safety of persons and/or facilities. The owners/operators of existing and/or future ruining
activities would be required to adhere to applicable design and engineering standards during the
228M5041-0013
441 -17-'1 0
1.048 aI b' "7�
construction, operation, and maintenance of existing and future mined areas as well as adhering
to the 1979 CEMEX land lease, and the most recent 1997 amendment that states that mining will
stop within 20 feet of groundwater levels. The District finds that such adherence would ensure
liquefaction-related impacts remain less than significant.No mitigation would be necessary.
4.6.5 Expansive Soils
The Cities of Highland and Redlands do not identify the Planning Area as an area
susceptible to hazards associated with expansive soils. Expansive soils generally have a
significant amount of clay particles that can give up water(shrink)or take on water(swell). The
change in volume exerts stress on buildings and other loads placed on these soils. Soils within
the Planning Area are derived from granitic rock and are somewhat excessively to excessively
drained, Soils in the Planning Area consist of stony, loamy san&and sandy, gravelly material in
intem-iittent streambeds. These soils are very rapidly permeable and possess a low sh-rink-swell
potential. Furthermore, the Project does not include the construction of habitable structures upon
expansive soils that would substantially create the risk to life or property. Therefore, the District
finds that no impact related to expansive soils would occur with implementation of the Project
activities, and not mitigation is necessary,
4.6.6 Septic Tanks
therefore,The Project does not include the construction of any habitable structures;
septic tanks would not be necessary under this activity. Cemex operations currently use 7 septic
tanks, and Robertson's uses 2 septic tanks. Although the ruining's existing footprint would be
expanding, the,mining structural facilities would not. No additional septic facilities would be
required. As the project does not include the installation of any new septic tanks or any ground
disturbance that would result in impacts to existing septic systems, the District finds that impacts
associated with septic tanks are less than significant. No mitigation is necessary.
__ Cumulative Geology and Soils Impacts
Impacts on geology and soils are generally localized and do not result in regionally
cumulative impacts. The only impact from the proposed project that could potentially be
cumulative would be erosion impacts; however,the District finds that adherence to standard
requirements wo,uld cause the Project's contribution to this cumulative impact to be,less than
significant both on and off the site.
4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
4°7�" --
- - -__�_� __ and Disposal Hazardous_ Materials
As with any operation that uses hazardousmaterial, components of the proposed project
involving hazardous substances must adhere to applicable local, State,and Federal safety
standards,ordinances,or regulations. As for water conservation, flood control, and water
production activities within the Wash Plan, they do not include the routine transport,use or
disposal of hazardous materials. No impacts will occur, and no mitigation is necessary.
1287/01 5042-0013
In contrast,with implementation of the proposed Project, raining,activities conducted as
part of normal operations at Cemex and Robertson's would continue and the presence of
hazardous materials and the routine transport,use,or disposal of hazardous materials would
occur. Construction of mining access and haul roads(as well as future construction of roadways
on rights-of-way designated by the Project) associated with the proposed Project may use
hazardous materials;however,the implementation of standard construction techniques would
minimize hazardous waste releases. Additionally, the use of any hazardous material during the
construction of these roads would be temporary. The proposed roads would be for the routine
transport of'mined-aggregate and not a hazardous material- Any proposed use or disposal of
hazardous material by the mining operations would be required to comply with regulations
regarding hazardous materials and hazardous waste. The District finds that compliance with
Federal, State, and local regulations will ensure impacts associated with the routine transport,
use, and disposal of hazardous materials remain less than significant and no mitigation is
necessary.
4.7.2 Reasonable Foreseeable Upset and Accident Conditions
Any hazardous materials in the Planning Area will continue to be handled in accordance
with all applicable,State and Federal laws, including laws for containment,reporting,and
remediation requirements in the eventof a spill or accidental release. As previously stated, water
conservation, flood control, and water production activities within the Wash Plan do not include
the routine transport,use or disposal of hazardous materials. Even so,the use,transport and
disposal of hazardous materials that may be required for the operation and maintenance of water
conservation, flood control,and water production facilities are regulated. There is no potential
for the accidental release of hazardous materials with respect to right-of-way designation. The
District finds that no impacts will occur, and no mitigation is necessary.
Hazardous materials are currently used in mining activities conducted in the Planning
Area. While mining activities are already occurring, the proposed Project includes an expansion
of current mining operations,which would increase the amount of hazardous materials need.
Accidental release of hazardous materials could occur under many circumstances in the Planning
Area, including equipment leaking,storage containers leaking,or a spill of hazardous materials.
Any hazardous materials in the Planning Area will continue to be handled in accordance with all
applicable State and Federal laws,including laws for containment, reporting,and remediation
requirements in the event of a spill or accidental release. Hazardous materials and hazardous
waste in the Planning Area will be handled in accordance with all applicable,State and Federal
laws, which District finds will ensure that impacts remain less than significant. No mitigation is
necessary.
4.7.3 Safety Hazard near Existing or Proposed School
Beattie Middle School and Highland Grove Elementary School are located in the City of
Highland within approximately 0.25 mile of the Planning Area's northern boundary. The next
nearest school is Arroyo Verde Elementary School also north of the project boundary in the City
of Highland, approximately 04 mile away. As previously stated, water conservation,flood
control,and water production activities within the Wash Plan do riot include the routine
220'015041-0013
941213,04H a I I107M -19-
transport,use or disposal of hazardous materials. The District finds that no impacts will occur,
and no mitigation is necessary.
The continuation and expansion of the mining activities proposed by the Projectwill not
tale place within 0.25 toile of an existing or proposed;school. Any hazardous materials in the;
Planning Area will continue to be handled in accordance with all applicable State and Federal
laws, including laws for containment, reporting,and rete diction requirements in the event of a
spill,or accidental release. Hazardous materials and hazardous waste are required to be handled
in accordance with all applicable State and Federal laws,which will ensure Haat impacts remain
less than significant leo mitigation is necessary. Similarly,the designation of rights-of-way and
potential future improvements would not take place within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed
school,and therefore the District finds that only less than significant impacts would occur. No
mitigation is necessary.
4.7.4 Within Two Miles of a Public or Private Airport
Portions of the Planning Area are located near the San Bernardino International Airport
(SBD) to the west and the Redlands Municipal Airport to the south. Nonetheless,because land
uses associated with the proposed project are compatible with the nearby airports,the District'
finds that implementation of the proposed Project would not create a significant aviation safety
hazard in the Planning Area,
No residences or permanent workplaces are present within areas of the water
conservation,flood control operations or water production operations and their maintenance.
Furthermore,facility operations and maintenance are not prohibited in any of the zones for either
airport. Similarly,no residential uses are present within the aggregate mining Was. Although
the aggregate coining facilities employ workers who are routinely present within the airport
hazard areas,the proposed project does not propose any prohibited uses in any of the zones for
either airport. Lastly,the land uses proposed by the Project's general Placa Amendments will be
compatible with the nearby airports, and implementation of the proposed Project would not
create a significant aviation safety hazard for people working in the Planning Area. In addition,
all projects within the Planning Area would be required to comply with FAR part 77 and all
proposed construction will receive FAA concurrence via farm...7460 as required. Overall, the
District finds that the impacts associated with this issue are less than significant and no
mitigation would be necessary;.
4.7.5 Emergency Response Plan
/ash Plan property owners/participants would be required to design,construct,and
maintain structures,roadways, and facilities in compliance with applicable local,regional, State
and/or Federal requirements related to emergency access and evacuation plans, including the
City of Highland and.City of R.ed:land's respective Emergency Plans. In any case, Project
activities take place outside of areas that would be accessed or used by the public during an
emergency and propose no new construction that could interfere with evacuation routes. The
District finds that no impact would result and no mitigation would he necessary,
2287/015042,W13 r gip..
412€At 04B�11107108
Moreover, the designation of additional rights-of-way for the roadway widening,
realignment, and bridge construction will assist with the implementation of local emergency
response and evacuation plans, allowing traffic to flow with fewer restrictions and roadway
hazards by removing sharp curves and narrow bridges, However, while the completed Greenspet
Road Bridge and completed roadway widening projects would be a beneficial impact,
construction activities required to complete these projects could temporarily restrict vehicular
traffic and would be required to implement adequate and appropriate measures to facilitate the
passage of persons and vehicles through/around any required road closures.Adherence to these
measures—to-be identified when construction is proposed—would reduce potential cumulative
impacts related to this issue to a less than significant;level. The District finds that no impact will
result from the designation of bridge and roadway rights-of-way. No mitigation is necessary.
4.7.6 Open Pit Hazards to Trail Users
The proposed Project includes a suggested plan of integrated trails,which would form an
interconnecting network between the Cities of Highland and Redlands. The proposed Project
also provides for expanded aggregate mining activities that would create large open pits.With
the addition of trails to the Planning Area,recreational users on the trails would be exposed to
fail hazards associated with open mining pits; However,physical barriers would be installed
along trails within the Planning Area,both to prevent incursions from the trails into sensitive
planning areas and to prevent access to areas where mining activities will occur. Off-trail use
would be discouraged by (1)signage; (2)baseline-consistent barriers placed in or near areas of
-sensitive habitat, (3)maintenance of existing grades,which would provide separation from
adjacent areas; and(4)maintenance of surrounding area in natural conditions because boulders,
topography, and soils are unsuitable for bicycle and off-road use. Additionally,pit areas
adjacent to trails will be fenced, with warning signs,have 2:1 slopes which are easily walked or
driven down and pit rims will have a rock berm and signs. For this reason, the District finds that
impacts associated with open pit hazards to trail users are less than significant and no mitigation
is necessary.
4.7,7 Wildiand Fires
Project activities associated with water conservation,flood control and water production
would remain as they are now with the implementation of the proposed Project and would not
create an additional risk to people or structures as a result of a wildlan,d fire. There is no new
risk of exposure of people to wildland fire danger as;a result of these activities. The District
finds that no impact is anticipated and no mitigation is necessary.
Project activities associated with aggregate mining would not be exposed to increased
wildland fire risks. Vegetated natural hillsides susceptible to wildland fires are adjacent to a
portion of the Planning Area,but these natural hillsides are not directly adjacent to areas used for
aggregate mining activities. In any case, the proposed Project does not include development of
structures or residences. Persons working within expanded mining operations would not be
exposed to risks associated with wildland fires. In areas where mining activities or-cut,
vegetation surrounding mining equipment is cleared to maintain adequate fire protection, Fire
prevention and suppression equipment is maintained at the mining sites in accordance with,State
and local fire codes and all other applicable laws. Due to the fact that mining activities are
22SIM15042-0013
94121104DaIM/08 -21-
..........
conducted in accordance with State and local fire codes, the potential for significant impacts
associated with wildland fires is less than significant. The District finds that impacts related to
this issue would be less than significant and no mitigation is necessary.
4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
4.8.1 Violate Water Quality or Waste Discharge Requirements
Water conservation activities would continue to flow as it currently exists. Water
conservation activities typically do not produce additional waste that would result in a violation
of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements; therefore, the District finds that
impacts related to this issue are less than significant and no mitigation is required.
Concerning other Project activities,the project does not contemplate substantial
differences in these activities from existing baseline activities and operations, and therefore no
cumulative impacts resulting from-the continuation of these activities is expected to occur.
Increases in long-term development in the City of Highland, City of Redlands, and surrounding
areas may result in expansion of impermeable surfaces, which would increase the potential for
pollutants in runoff,posing potential impacts to water quality. However, the District rinds that
adherence to NPDES, SWPPP, and WQMP requirements will reduce such cumulative water
quality impact to less than significant levels_
Similarly, implementation of the proposed project would increase the amount of land set
aside for habitat conservation.Because this component would not physically change the existing
characteristics of the land and would not result in development, the existing quality of water
within, these areas would be maintained as well as protected. The waters present within the
habitat conservation portion of the proposed project would not be further degraded.Therefore,
the District finds that no impacts with respect to this issue would occur and no mitigation is
required
4.8.2 Deplete or Interfere with Groundwater Supplies or Recharge
Within the eastern portion of the Planning Area, the District currently operates 14
percolation basins with a wetted area of 64 acres and a maximum recharge capacity of 22,800
acre-feet per month.Because current conditions with water conservation infrastructure would not
be affected with the implementation of the proposed project, the District finds that impacts
related to the depletion of water supplies or impairment of recharge capabilities of the
surrounding area would not occur and no mitigation is required.
While the potential future expansion of impermeable surfaces may incrementally
decrease natural recharge for the groundwater basin,regional groundwater management
practices, included in the Seven Oaks Accord and the Integrated Regional Water Management
Plan, provide a flexible management system for accommodating such changing conditions, and
adjusting the amount and location of groundwater recharge to keep groundwater levels at an
appropriate level. The project proposes continuation of the historical practices of the District for
groundwater recharge, The project does not contemplate substantial differences in these
activities from existing baseline activities and operations, and therefore the District finds that no
2287V5042,0013
941213 04B aI 1107,108 -22-
cumulative impacts resulting from the continuation of these activities is expected to occur, and
no triitigation is required.
Additionally, mining activities within the Planning Area would need groundwater for the
processing of aggregate materials. With the implementation of the mining component of the
proposed project,an additional 2643 acre-feet per year would be needed for aggregate reining
operations. This additional 264.E acre-feet per year is anticipated to come from groundwater
sources. The additional water needed for the reining component would be within the Bunker ill
sub-basin's safe yield and would not result in a lowering of the existing groundwater levels in the
area. Therefore,the District finds that groundwater level impacts related to the raining;
component of the proposed project are anticipated to be less than significant and no mitigation is
required.;
4.4.3 Increase Erosion and/or Siltation
Implementation of the water conservation component among others of the proposed
Project would not Ater the existing drainage pattern of the area that would result in erasion or
siltation on or off the Planning Area;therefore,impacts are considered to be less than significant
and no mitigation is required. With the implementation of the proposed project,no changes in
flood control infrastructure or flood control activities would occur;and existing water production
activities are not anticipated to change,as water pumped froom the area would be routed to the
same water supply systems. In the longer term,the reclamation plans .for the area contemplate
that the quarry sites for Cemex and Robertson's reining operations would revegetate side slopes,
which would prevent erosion from occurring,since the vegetation would allow for existing
runoff to be intercepted. The District finds Haat no impacts are expected to occur,and no
mitigation is required.
4.4.4 Increase in Surface Water Runoff That Would Result In Flooding
The infrastructure required for flood control activities and maintenance wouldcontinue to
support the current configuration of the Santa Ana River and its tributaries and would continue to
modify normal drainage patterns as necessary to prevent flooding from occurring in other
downstream sections of the Santa Ana liver. These flood control activities are designed to alter
the flour of floods and would divert floodwater away from areas.(on the site and off the site)that
would be affected by the flood flaws, Therefore, the District finds that impacts with respect to.
surface runoff and flooding are reduced to a less than significant level and no mitigation is
required
4.4.5 Housing Flood Hazard Impacts
Most of the<annual;rainfall in the region occurs in the winter, Flooding in the Planning
Area would most likely result from intense storms, resulting in rapid runoff or through the failure
of darns. The Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA) Flood Insurance pate Maps
( s) identify areas subject to flooding during the if -year storm. Based on these FIRM
reaps and as indicated in Draft BlR Figure 4.5:2,the Planning Area is identified as being within a:
100-year and 500-year flood.zone. However, project activities do not include the development
of housing, 'foie District finds that no:project impacts will occur, and no mitigation is required.
941213 04B n9 9M
4.8.6 Impede or Redirect Flood Flows
Flood control activities within the Planning Area would continue to occur with
implementation of the proposed project. Because no additional flood control facilities or
infrastructure construction are included in the Project, no additional structures would be placed
within a 100-year floodplain. Therefore,the District finds that no impacts related to the
placement of structures within a,floodplain would occur with implementation of the proposed
Project and no mitigation is required,
4.8.7 Levee and Dam Flooding Impacts
The Seven Oaks Dam affords flood protection from the Santa An River for communities
along the Santa Ana River and is one of two flood control reservoirs in the Santa Ana Watershed.
Portions of the Planning Area are within the potential inundation area of the Seven Oaks Dam;
however,occurrence of such an event is extremely remote,as the Seven Oaks Dam has been
engineered and constructed to withstand the projected maximum accelerations that could be
produced at the site by seismic events on known faults. As such, a seismically-induced failure of
the dam is highly unlikely. In any case, no habitable structures would be constructed as part of
the Project and Project activities would not expose a significant number of people to flooding
hazards resulting from dam inundation.Therefore,the District finds that impacts associated with
this issue would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.
4.8.8 Seiche,Tsunami,or 11dflow-Related Impacts
Seiches are oscillations in enclosed bodies of water that are caused by a number of
factors,most often wind or seismic activity. Lakes in seismically active areas are also at risk
from seiches. A tsunami is a series of large waves of extremely long wavelengths generated by a
violent undersea disturbance or activity near the coast or in the ocean and can occur when there
is a sudden displacement of a large volume of water. The Planning Area is approximately 52
miles northeast of the Pacific Ocean. A mud slide(also known as a mudflow)occurs when there
is fast-moving water and a great volume of sediment and debris that surges down a slope,stream,
canyon,arroyo,or gulch with tremendous fence. They are similar to flash floods and can occur
suddenly without time for adequate warning. Mudflows can ruin substantial improvements with
the force of the flow itself or by burying improvements with mud and debris. Although the
western portion of the Planning Area would normally be susceptible to mud slides,the operation
of the Seven Oaks Dam effectively eliminates downstream transport of sediment larger than sand
from the Santa Ana Watershed,fulfilling one of the reasons why the dam was built. In addition,
any potential mudflows that would occur would be confined to the area behind Seven Oaks Dam.
Therefore, the District finds that impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant
and no mitigation is required.
4.8.9 Cumulative Hydrology and Water Quality Impacts
The cumulative area for hydrologic and water quality impacts is the Bunker Hill Sub-
Basin Area. The Project proposes continuation of the historical practices of the District and the
SBCFCD for groundwater recharge and flood control. The Project does not contemplate
substantial differences in these activities from existing baseline activities and operations, and
2287 I5042-0013
-24-
.............
therefore no cumulative impacts resulting from the continuation of these activities is expected to
occur. The District finds that changes in surface runoff from mining excavations would result in
less than significant impacts because mining operations will include protections to beep mining
operations clear of groundwater and reclamation plans will require reve-getation of side slopes to
reduce runoff and.erosion.
Increases in long-terra development in the City of Highland,City of Redlands,,and
surrounding areas may result in expansion of impermeable surfaces,which would increase the
potential for pollutants in runoff,posing potential threats to water quality. However, adherence
to l' PDES,S' PPP, and."t `QMP requirements will reduce such cumulative water quality impact
to less than significant levels. While the potential future expansion of impermeable surfaces may
incrementally decrease natural recharge for the groundwater basin,regional groundwater
management practices, such as evidenced by the Seven Oaks:accord and the integrated regional
''Fater Management Plan, provide a flexible management system for accommodating such
changing conditions, and adjusting the amount and location;of groundwater recharge to beep
groundwater levels at an appropriate level. As such, the District finds that no significant
cumulative hydrologic or water quality impacts are expected from the project, and no mitigation
is required.
4.9 Ladd.Use and Planning
4.9.1 Physically Divide an Established Community
The Planning Area does not contain any existing housing that constitutes part of a
community or neighborhood. In addition, natural features, such as the Santa,Ana River, form a
physical divide within the Planning area. The Planning Area is also divided by city boundary
lines with the northern half of the Planning.Arca located within the City of Highland and the
southern half of the Planning.,Area located within the City of Redlands. Moreover, the Project
intentionally groups similar uses in adjacent geographic areas rather than dividing uses across the
Planning.Area. Therefore,the District finds that no impacts related to this issue are anticipated
to occur and no mitigation would be required;
4.9.E Conflict with Applicable Land Use Plans,Policies,or Regulations
Draft EIR Table 4.9.0 depicts applicable plans, policies, and regulations and evaluates
the Project and Project activities for consistency therewith. For the most part, the Project would'
not conflict with land use plans,policies, or regulations. The District finals that no impacts
related to this issue would occur and no mitigation would be require.
However, the proposed Project is inconsistent with portions of the EL I South Coast
.Resource Management Plan, in that it proposes mining for areas presently within the ACEC
designation,and proposes land exchanges to change the areas of 13LM ownership. The South
Coast Resource Management Plan will be amended as a part of a subsequent action that will
follow the approval,of this plan. The amendment will revise the SCRN4P to be consistent with
this project to alleviate the inconsistency and any impact. Because the land exchange between
the Districted BLM would not conflict with land use plans, the District finds that no impacts
related to this issue would occur and no mitigation would be require.:
4.9.3 Conflict with Applicable Airport Land Use Plans'
In general, the Project and Project activities do not result in the building of structures or
encourage high densities of people to congregate within existing flight patterns. To the extent
any structures/infrastructure<are constructed, such as the new haul road,the
structureslinfrastructure are not considered to be land uses that would significantly affect existing
airport land use plans as these uses are not land intensive life residential or commercial
development. TherefOTe,the District finds that a less than significant impact associated with this
issue is anticipated to occur and no mitigation would be required.
4.9A Conflict with a Habitat Conservation Plan
There axe currently no adopted habitat conservation pians or natural community
conservation pians for the Planning Area. The Project EIR subject to these Findings lays the
groundwork for subsequent environmental documents that would allow for the land exchange
between the District and the,BLMM,which would:ultimately lead to the development and approval
of the Upper Santa Ana River Habitat Conservation Plan(HCP). The HCP would cover the
entire Project site and would take into account the various activities and land uses that are
occurring and would occur. However, since this HCP is still in the developmental phase and is
not an adopted habitat conservation plan,the proposedProject would not conflict with any
applicable habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans. In addition, the
,Array Carps of Engineers has recently undertaken a feasibility study for potential recreational
and habitat preservation uses in an area including the Planning Area for this Project. That study`
titled the"San Bernardino Lakes and Streams Ecosystem Restoration Feasibility Study,"will use
much of the underlying analyses and data from this EIR as a:basis for its studies. That feasibility
study is expected to tier off of the analyses presented in this document for this project, and will
take the habitat enhancement programs and ultimate habitat conservation plan to implement this
project as part of the environmental and regulatory baseline against which any project or
program arising from the feasibility study will be measured. As such, the District finds that the,
will be no long-terra cumulative impact in terms of consistency with this project's HCP or the
mitigation measures it proposes.
4.9.5Cumulative Land Use and Planning Impacts.
The proposed Project would be consistent with the affected jurisdiction's general plans as
well as the regional plans in which the project is located in. There are no other projects in the
Project vicinity that would in combination with the proposed Project create a cumulative impact
by dividing an established community,conflict with applicable land use plans, policies,or
regulations,or conflict with an approved habitat conservation plan. The District finds that a.less
than significant impact would occur,
4.10 Mineral Resources
4. 0.l Loss of Statewide or Regional Mineral Resources
tt is State policy to,protect the availability of those resources heeded to support economic
development in the region. Currently, aggregate mining in the Planning Area is near areas where
aggregate is needed, which reduces the transportation cost of the raw aggregate and enol products
.21a7°�15174s X13 3
,M1213 044 as 111OW0 —26-
of ready-mix concrete and asphalt; this,in turn, affects construction costs. The need to provide
areas within the Planning Area for the availability of aggregate reserves to meet the expected
demand is vital to the local and regional economy. With the implementation of the proposed
Project, an additional 363 acres would be devoted to mining uses,bringing the total mining area
to approximately 1,195 acres. With the expansion of the area of mining,production at Cemex,
and Robertson's operations would increase up to 6.0 million tons per year. Using the 2005
production amount of 176.4 million tons on a Statewide level, the amount of production that
would result from the implementation of the proposed project would amount to 3.4 percent of the
total production of sand and gravel in California. Because the proposed Project would increase
sand and gravel aggregate production,no loss of statewide or regional mineral resources would
occur. As a result, the District finds that no significant impact with respect to this issue would
occur. In fact,the District finds that there would be a beneficial impact with regard to providing
an increased arnoDnt of sand and gravel aggregate to the communities in the San Bernardino
Valley.
Additionally, implementation of the proposed Project would result in the construction of
a new access road and the continued maintenance of existing access roads. The construction of a
new access road would supplement current and future mineral extraction activities in the
Planning Area. The construction of the new access road would be within an area that has already
been mined and is already a designated part of the internal circulation of existing mineral
extraction activities. Therefore,the District again finds that impacts associated with this issue
would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.
With respect to the Project land exchanges,the designation of the former mining leased
properties to non-aggregate mining uses does,in a sense,cause an impact of loss of aggregate
reserves. As noted against environmental baseline,however,these areas are not presently being
mined,and under prevailing regulatory constraints there is some question whether they could be
mined,absent the consolidated permitting effort which constitutes this Project. Since much of
this area has already been planned for habitat conservation activities,these lands are not
considered to be viable mining areas by the City of Highland and City of Redlands. Therefore,
the District finds that impacts of the project to aggregate reserves which are likely to be mined
are less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
4.10.2 Loss of Locally Important Mineral Resources
In addition to the Mineral Resource-,findings above,the Cities of Highland and Redlands
have adopted policies governing the extraction of mineral resources and reclamation of mined
areas. Continued implementation of these regulations would allow for the mining of locally-
important mineral resources. Because this additional mining land is situated in an area
designated as having significant mineral resources and because the proposed Project would result
in the extraction of those resources,the District finds that a less than significant impact is
anticipated to occur with respect to a locally available and known mineral resource.
4.11 Noise
4.11.1 Private Airstrip Noise Impacts
27287/01'5042.0011
941213,04D a I I AP108 ?7—
Because there are no private airstrips located within the vicinity of the Planning Area, the
District finds that there would be no impacts to the any of the nine components of the Project
associated with exposure of people residing or working in the Planning Area to excessive noise
levels from private aircraft. No mitigation measures are required.
4.11.2 Construction Noise Impacts
Other that aggregate mining haul road construction,no construction is included as part of
the Project. While the Project EIR recognizes that the designation of roadways and future water
conservation facilities,for example,will result in future noise impacts,the District rinds that
such impacts are speculative_and/or will be subject to further environmental review prior to the
commencement of construction,
As a part of the proposed project related to mining activities, portions of the existing haul
roads within the project will be paved. The construction equipment used during the paving of
the haul road would create a temporary noise source. The paving equipment is not expected to
create a significant amount of noise. In addition the haul road to be paved is located away from
sensitive noise receptors. Noise created by the construction to occur related to aggregate mining
would not be in excess of the activities currently taking place within the mining area. Therefore,
the District finds that construction noise impacts would be less than significant,and no
mitigation measures are required,
4.11.3 Mobile Source Noise Impacts to Sensitive Receptors
With the exception of aggregate mining,no Project component will result in an increase
in mobile source noise impacts. Vehicular traffic noise associated with the expansion of mining
activities would potentially impact off-site noise-sensitive land uses. With the expansion of the
mining activities, mobile noise sources would include truck traffic both within the project and on
adjacent roads and the operation of heavy mobile equipment within the Planning Area. The
expansion of the mining activities is anticipated to increase the amount of activity within the
Project boundary and the number of trucks on the local roadways. However, as shown in Draft
EIR Tables 4.1 LL and 4.11 lel', the 2008 and 2030 with-project(Mining Expansion) scenarios
would have a traffic noise increase of up to 0,1 dBA. As changes in noise levels of 3 dBA or
less are not perceptible to the human ear in an outdoor environment,these noise level increases
would be considered less than significant. The noise from the heavy-duty truck traffic on the
new truck access road at 5th Street between Church Avenue and SR-30 would not cause a
significant noise impact to the nearest sensitive receptors approximately 500 feet to the north on
Powell Drive, The District finds that impacts are less than significant, and no mitigation
measures are required.
4.11.4 Stationary Source Noise Impacts to Sensitive Receptors
With the exception of aggregate mining, no Project component will result in an increase
in stationary source noise impacts. Any noise impacts that may occur as a result of future
activities will be determined at the time,that specific facilities and their locations can be
determined.
-
.......
The mining operations would potentially result in noise impacts on noise-sensitive land
uses adjacent to the:Planning Area. lining operations include excavation, transporting, and
processing of materials in the Planning Area. Based on the noise analyses contained in the
Project PIR,the District finds that noise levels generated by excavation equipment measured
outside of the Planning Area would be below the Cities' daytime and nighttime maximum noise
levels. Therefore,the District finds that a less than significant impact would occur with the on-
site excavation of aggregate materials,and no mitigation measures are required. Similarly,the
District finds that no significant noise impacts would occur with the on-site transport of
excavated materials,on-site aggregate processing, and the back-up alarms for ruining vehicles,
No mitigation measures are required.
4.11,5 Groundborne Vibration or Groundb€arne Noise Level Impacts
With the exception of aggregate mining, no Project component will result in an increase'
in groundborne vibrations or noise level impacts. Cxroundborne vibrations generated from
excavation and processing activities would potentially impact sensitive receptors in the project
vicinity. Conventional aggregate ruining practices common to the industry include excavating
loose material with bulldozers and loaders and loading rock and sand onto haul trucks for
transport from the urine quarry to the primary crusher. The proposed Project would excavate
expanded raw materials using standard open pit ruining techniques. Equipment used would not
differ(other than as a result of technological advancements;or replacement equipment)from the
current mining operations in the Planning.Area. used on the analyses in the Project EI , the
closest residences(sensitive receptors) to the Planning Area would only be exposed to vibration
levels below the threshold of human perception resulting from excavation,aggregate processing,
and hauls roads. The District finds that groundborne vibration impacts are less that significant,
and no mitigation is required.,:.
4,11.6 Public Airport Noise Impact
The Redlands Municipal Airport is located immediately south of the Planning Area, and
the Sart Bernardino International Airport is located immediately' west of the Santa Ana:River
Planning Area. Areas surrounding both airports,which include the Planning Area.,are exposed
to aircraft noise. As none of the nine major components of the proposed:Project contain noise-
sensitive receptors (e.g.,educational facilities,residences,or hospitals),the District finds that
aircraft noise would have a less than significant impact on the all of the uses proposed and no
initiation measures are required.
4 1 1.7 Cumulative Noise Impact ;
Cumulative noise impacts associated with roadway noise Have been addressed based on
the cumulative traffic volumes, The increases over existing traffic volume are attributable to
cumulative development projects in the Project vicinity and region. The District finds that,based'
on the future roadway noise assessment, there will be no significant roadway noise impacts
associated with cumulative plus project conditions. Due to the distance between the Project site
and the potentially noise-sensitive receptors, is well as application of the Cities' noise ordinance
and.General Plan policies, the District also finds that cumulative impacts associated with short-
term construction related impacts are less than significant.
220W015(92_NO �
941213 048 a 11A)7
4,12 Population and Housing
4.12.1 Population Growth Inducement
Project activities weld not induce population growth,as residential or commercial
development wouldnotoccur. There weld be no direct or indirect population growth
inducement associated with the provision of new homes and businesses or extension of roads or
other infrastructure, because additional housing would not be required by the proposed Project.
The continuation of existing Planning Area activities is similarly not anticipated to induce
population or ether growth. Therefore, the District finds that population growth impacts are less
than significant, and no mitigation is required.
;substantial facts in the record support the District's finding,for instance:
• Demand.for aggregate is higher than the actual supply; therefore, increased mining
production addresses growth rather than inducing it,
• When constructed., designated roadways would accommodate a higher number of
vehicles in direct relationship to the growth projected in the Highland and Redland's
General Plans. However, the increase in capacity of a roadway does not necessarily
trigger a related increase in population. For population growth to occur due to a man-
made catalyst (a roadway widening),;an increase in housing opportunities trust be
available.
• The 5th Street access road to be constructed:would provide direct access for traffic
related to the mining operations and would help to improve circulation in this area by
removing part of the mining related traffic off of the public street system, The
roadway would not provide a catalyst for population growth since the only users of
the roadway will be the mining operators.
4.12.2 Displacement of Housing and People and Construction of New housing
Project activities would not displace existing housing stock, nor would these activities
displace substantial numbers of people necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere because no residential use is currently located(or planned) within the Planning Area
boundaries. Since no houses or people would be displaced by water conservation operations, the
District finds that no impacts associated with this issue would occur and no mitigation would be
required
4.12.3 Cumulative Population and Housing Impacts
The proposed Project would not result in cumulative growth-inducement impacts as there
ars no houses being built and there are no additional jobs created as a result of Project
implementation. Although restraints on mining operations could affect the local economy, and
the proposed Project would have varied effects on the laical economy, the District firms that the
Project's population and housing impacts are less than significant, and no mitigation measures
would be necessary,
22871015042-000
4.13 Public Services
4.13.1 Fire Protection
Project activities would not increase the demand for fire protection services,as residential
or commercial development ent would not occur. 'There would be no substantial physical
environmental impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered fire stations,
because additional fire protection services would not required. The existing fire response
levels of service would continue to be adequate.For these reasons,the District finds that no
impacts to fire protection services would occur,and no mitigation is necessary.,
4.13.2 Police Protection
Project activities would not increase the demand foto policeprotection services, as
residential or commercial development would not occur. Because;this activity does not include a
residential component and therefore population increase,it would not require additional police
services to maintain existing levels of service, The activity would not introduce uses that would
require additional police and/or patrolling services and, therefore,would not result in substantial
physical environmental impact associated with the provision of new or physically altered police
stations. The.District finds that no impacts to police protection would occur,and no mitigation is
necessary.
4.13.3 School Facilities
Project activities would not increase the demand for school services, as residential or
commercial development`would not occur. Because this activity does not include a residential
component, it would not result in an increase in population,and would not result in the need for
additional school services. There would be no substantial physical environmental impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically altered school facilities,because additional
school facilities would not be required.:..The District finds that no impacts to school services
would occur, and no mitigation is necessary.
4.13.4 Cumulative Impact for Public Services
The proposed project would not produce significant impacts to fire protection,police
protection,or school services. There are no projects that would, in combination with the
proposed..Project's insignificant impacts,result in any significant impact to these public services;
therefore, the District finds that there are no significant cumulative impacts.
4.14 Recreation
4.14.1 New or Physically Altered Recreation and Parte Facilities
With the exception of trail designation (and potential future mine reclamation projects),
Project activities do not include new of physically altered recreation and park facilities. The use
of the Borrow Pit for miniature radio-controlled aircraft, an existing recreational activity,may
continue to occur per the respective annual permit with the District. However,future planned
facilities that are proposed for the Borrow Mita may result in the elimination or relocation of this
i287A)15042-0013
activity at a future date. The expansion of additional basins or pipelines within the Borrow Pit is
not a part of the Planning Area project description; therefore, it is anticipated that the miniature
radio-controlled aircraft activities currently ongoing would continue to occur and would not
result in new or physically altered recreational facilities as a result of project implementation.
Since, the provision of new or physically altered facilities does not apply to water conservation
activities,the District finds that no impacts related to this issue would occur and no mitigation is
required.
With respect to trails, in order to maintain an interconnecting trail system between the
two cities, the City of Redlands would be required to make amendments to the General Plan for
both the Alabama Street Trail and the Church Street Trail to align with the Alabama Street Trail
and Orange Street-Boulder Avenue Trail identified by the City of Highland. In both cases, the
realignment of the two General Plan trails within the City of Redlands would not create a
significant impact because both of the new trail alignments would utilize existing roadways and
would be classified as Class 2 bikeways. Similarly, the City of Redlands would be required to
make amendments to the General Plan to remove the existing Santa Fe—Mentone Trail alignment
segment and include the alignments of the Old Rail Line Trail and Cone Camp Road Trail
segments. These trails identified above would use existing roads,utility easements, and an
abandoned railroad bed, which have a]been previously disturbed. Therefore, the District finds
that no significant impact is anticipated to occur with the realignment,removals, and additions of
the trails and no mitigation would be required.
As previously indicated, recreational facilities included in the Project would consist
solely of an interconnecting trails system. All trails would be located on existing service roads,
utility easements, and old railroad beds. Except for the placement of signs indicating that trails
and service roads would serve a dual purpose,there would be no construction activities
associated with trails. For trails along roadways that would require paving from future roadway
improvement projects (Alabama Street Trail,Orange Street-Boulder Avenue Trail, and
Greenspot Road Trail), the physical impact associated with the new designation of the trail
alignment will be evaluated at a future date concurrent with the environmental review required
for the future roadway improvement projects. Because these trails are Class 2 trails,they would
be located within the roadway rights-of-way and are included in the ultimate width of the
roadway improvements. Boulders or similar barricades may be placed to direct trail users away
from habitat conservation,flood control, water conservation, and mining activities. Because the
provision of trails would occur on existing service roads, utility easements, and old railroad beds
(i.e., previously disturbed areas),the District finds that there would be no adverse physical
impacts associated with the designation of additional recreational trail rights-of-way. Therefore
no mitigation would be required.
4.14.2 Increased Use of Existing Recreational Facilities
The Planning Area does not include the construction of habitable structures that would
increase the population in the area and thereby affect existing recreational facilities, No
additional jobs would be created as a result of Project implementation, Therefore,as no increase
in population is anticipated in the Planning Area, there would be less than significant impacts to
existing recreational facilities. While implementation of the Project includes the development of
new trails,the use of these trails would not affect the facilities at existing neighborhood and
2287AD11042-0013
_ -
regional parks. The new trails would benefit the public by adding new recreational facilities and
by connecting existing trails, The District finds that impacts associated with this issue are less
than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Although there would potentially be an increase in the use of existing trails outside of the
Planning Area due to a rectified trails plan within the Planning Area that would increase
pedestrian mobility and thus encourage trail use, the jurisdictions where the segments of the
Planning Area trails are located would be responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of the
trails. For the Cities of Highland and Redlands,the increase in trail use would be offset through
a combination of development impact fees,capital budgeting,and land acquisition agreements.
Because these fee structures and programs are in place,impacts associated with the increased,use
of trails located within the Planning Area would be less than significant. Since there would not
be substantial physical deterioration associated with the designation of additional recreational
trail rights-of-way, the District finds that impacts are less than significant,and no mitigation
would be required.
4.14.3 Cumulative Parks and Recreation bnpact
The proposed Project would not result in an increase in population of the cities of
Highland and Redlands and the,community of Mentone. With no increase in population,
increased usage of nearby regional recreational facilities would not occur. Development of other
projects in the area may result in additional increased usage of regional recreational facilities;
however,payment of user fees will reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.
Implementation of the proposed Project would not result in impacts to recreational users because
the project proposes to increase the availability of recreational opportunities for the region's
residents through increased open space and the addition of a trails system. The District finds that
cumulative parks and recreation impacts are less than significant,and no mitigation is requited.
4.15 Transportation and Traffic
4.15.1 Air Traffic Patterns
The Project components do not propose any prohibited uses in any of the safety areas for
either the San Bernardino International Airport or the Redlands Municipal Airport. As land uses
associated with the Project are compatible with the nearby airports, implementation of the
Project would not create a substantialsafety hazard associated with air traffic patterns or
increased traffic levels in the Planning Area. As such, the District finds that impacts associated
with this issue are less than significant and no mitigation is required.
4.15.2 Design Hazard Features
With the exception of aggregate mining,the Project does not propose any construction,
Operations and maintenance will continue as is in the Planning without new design hazard
impacts. The new access road connecting the haul road to 5,h Street would eliminate the mixing
of large trucks and passenger vehicles at the Palm Avenue/51h Street intersection, thus reducing
the potential for hazards at this location, As required by State law,all project-related-
transportation improvements would be designed by a licensed professional civil engineer and
constructed by a licensed construction contractor. 'rhe Project would result in new traffic signals
27SV015042.0013
941 J1 1,C4B-1 11071M -33-
and lane restriping,providing safe and efficient access to and from the Planning Area and would
Z�
not result in the creation of circulation design hazards. For these reasons, the District finds that
impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.
4.15.3 Emergency Access
Planning Area property owners/Wash Plan proponents would be required to maintain
roadways and facilities in compliance with applicable local,regional,State,and/or Federal
requirements related to emergency access and evacuation plans. Any Project activities that
would restrict traffic flows on area roadways would be required to implement adequate and
appropriate measures to facilitate the passage of persons and vehicles throughlaround any
required road closures, The District finds that adherence to these measures would reduce
potential impacts related to this issue to a less than significant level and no mitigation is required.
4.15.4 Parking Capacity
The Municipal Codes of the Cities of Highland and Redlands do not specify any parking
requirements for the proposed land uses. It is assumed that parking capacity is not an issue
associated with Project land uses. Due to the nature of the uses,parking configurations may
change on a daily basis. The current parking capacity at the Robertson's and Cemex facilities is
considered more than adequate as the total area designated for mining activities is approximately
1,195 acres. The trails will be connected to existing roadway rights-of-way and other existing
recreational areas that will serve as the type of trial bead facilities,or parking access points,that
should serve the limited parking demands of this type of use. Overall,the District finds that
parking capacity impacts are less than significant and no mitigation is required.
4.15.5 Alternative Transportation Policies,Plans and Programs
Alternative transportation policies,plans, and programs would not apply to the majority
of Project activities because,for instance,it is impractical to utilize alternative transportation for
water conservation, flood control, or water production operation and maintenance activities
within the Planning Area. Therefore,the District finds no impacts associated with this activity
would occur and no mitigation is required.
Even so, the design of certain Project components (e.gmining facilities) would be
requited to adhere to applicable City of Highland and City of Redlands standards that support
and/or facilitate alternative means of transportation. Through both Cities' project review
process, policies,plans, and/or programs supporting alternative transportation will be reviewed
and incorporated as applicable. Policies related to bicycle use within mining areas would not
apply as bicycle travel within mining operations is unsafe and impractical. As the proposed
project is requited to adhere to alternative transportation requirements prior to approval, the
District finds that impacts associated with:-alternative transportation are less than significant and
no mitigation is required.
4.16 Utilities And Service Systems
4.16.1 Wastewater Treatment Requirements
2 2297,TP 15042-0013
941 Z 13,044 a 11/07108 -34-
Water conservation,flood control operations,and water production activities within tete
Planning Area would not deal with the treatment of wastewater. Since wastewater treatment
requirements are not applicable to these components of the proposed'Project,the District finds
that no impact associated with this issue would occur and no mitigation is required.
However,the aggregate mining,operations have current wastewater treatment facilities
consisting of on-site septic.tanks,]each fields,and portable toilets in the mining areas. The
permitting and completion of the waste manifest is required of any waste hauler that discharges
to the local wastewater treatment facility.Because the permit requirements established by the
cities and waste disposal regulations would ensure that discharges into the sewer system
resulting from the operation of the proposed project would not exceed applicable RtCB
wastewater treatment requirements,the District funds that a less than significant impact related to
this issue would occur and no mitigation is required.
4.1.61.2 New or Expanded Wastewater Treatment Facilities
The amount of wastewater generated from the aggregate mining activities would not
necessitate the construction or expansion of wastewater treatment facilities,and the remainder of
Project components do not require new or expanded facilities at all. Wastewater treatment
facilities within the aggregate mining area would consist of portable toilets. Thus, the District
finds that impacts related to this issue are less than significant and no mitigation is required:
4.16.3 New or Expanded Stormwater Drainage Facilities
In general,;Project components would continue operations as is without any expansion or
change to stormwater drainage facilities. However,prior to approval of the new "'Street access
road,the proposed construction would include conditions of approval to construct all off-site and
on-site stormwater drainage facilities needed to distribute stormwater within the new 5th Street
access road:. As any environmental effect resulting from the installation of rewired water
infrastructure would be offset through conditions unposed on the project;by each respective
jurisdiction and through the payment of required fees,the District finds that impacts related to
this issue would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required,
4.164 Adequate Water Supply
District water spreading would continue at, or potentially somewhat below,historical
recharge practices: Although specific water recharge in District-owned basins may decrease;
under the comprehensive regional groundwater management structure contemplated under the
Seven Dabs accord and/or the Integrated Regional Management Plan,such water supplies, wben
available, would be diverted to either regional uses, specifically those deemed through the:
deliberative management process as better applied to other areas or uses. There is therefore no
increase water demand generated as a result of the Project,although there may be a reallocation
of application of existing;water resources.
The District finds that net impacts associated with this issue are expected and no
mitigation is required. Similarly, water production activities are the source of water supplies
within the Planning Area. Since these water production activities would remain the same with
22971OM42,001 3 _ .x;
9.41 ZI 04B al 1107tp
the implementation of the proposed project, the District finds no impact associated with this
issue is anticipated to occur;,and no mitigation is required.
Lastly,it is anticipated that both Cemex and Robertson's would use their own wells for
existing aggregate mining extractions. However, in the dent that either Cernex or Robertson's
is unable to extract water,based on various agreements, entitlements, and assurances,the EVWD
has stated it is able to meet;an increased demand for water over the next 20 years,even during
drought conditions. Again,the District finds no impact associated with this issue is anticipated
to occur, and no mitigation is required.
4.16.5 Wastewater Treatment Capacity'
In general, effects relater]to wastewater treatment capacity would not be applicable to
this Project and no impacts:associated with this issue would occur. No mitigation;would be
required. For instance, the mining operations would not generate significant amounts o
additional wastewater, Portable toilets are currently used for remote raining locations; therefore,
it is reasonable to anticipate that additional portable toilets would be used in expanded mining
areas. Portable toilet facilities typically include individual plastic stalls containing toilets, each
with its own independent sanitary system consisting of rudimentary plumbing,a holding tank,
and sanitizing chemicals. The contents of portable toilet holding tanks must be disposed of in
accordance with Mate and Federal environmental regulations. The chemicals used to sanitize the
portable toilet facility are biodegradable and the waste in the holding tanks must be disposed of
as any other form of sewage;it is subject to local.,Mate, and Federal regulation. The collection
of the wastewater from portable toilet facilities would be removed by a licensed waste hauler and
transported for disposal at an approved disposal facility. Because the expansion of rriining
activities would generate small and limited quantities of wastewater from portable toilets and
because this activity would be conducted per applicable regulations,the District finds that
impacts related to this issue are less than significant and no mitigation is required.
4.l 6.6 Solid'Waste Facilities
It is anticipated that no additional solid waste would be generated by existing water
conservation,flood control, and water production acti=vities. It is also anticipated that such
activities would not affect the capacity of nearby landfills. Therefore, the District finds that no
impacts associated with this issue would occur and no mitigation is required.
Wastes from additional mining operations would be collected and taken to an authorized
landfill. Two types of solid waste are typically generated in raining areas: 1) large rocks and
boulders and( ) slag and tailings let over after processing. Waste (i.e., rocks, soil,and
boulders)that would come from mining activities would be diverted from landfill disposal and
could be sold or used for reclamation activities,revegetation, and haul roads. It is anticipated
that the expansion of mining,activities would not;generate an amount of solid waste that would
result in a change of current service levels,as the main activity would include excavation
activities that typically would.not generate significant solid waste. Therefore, the District finds.
that no significant solid waste disposal impact would occur;
4.16.7 Solid Waste Reduction
The Cities of Highland and Redlands are responsible for meeting the requirements of AB
939, which includes a 50 percent reduction in disposal by the start of 2000 and preparation of a
solid waste reduction plan to help reduce the amount of solid waste disposed of at the landfills.
As of 2005, 3 percent of the solid waste generated by the City of Highland was diverted to
recycling facilities. As of 2005, 39 percent of the solid waste generated by the City of Redland '
was diverted to recycling facilities. Although these percentages fall short of the AB 939
requirement of 50 percent,>the activities proposed within the Planning Area would produce
minimal solid waste, The waste generators within the Planning Area would be required to
coordinate with a waste hauler to develop collection of recyclable materials for the project on a
common schedule as set forth in applicable local.,regional, and state programs. The District
finds that solid waste reduction impactsareless than significant and not mitigation is required.
4.16.8 Cumulative utilities and Service System Impacts
'dater Supply. The cumulative area for water supply-related issues is the>EV4VD and
Redlands mutual Nater service area. Although the Project itself would not significantly increase'
crater demand,increases in population and intensity of uses would contribute to increases in the
overall regional water demand. however, projects within the water purveyor service boundaries
would be required to analyze water supply, treatment;requirements,and effects on existing
systems. Because this analysis would be required for projects within these service boundaries,
the District finds that no cumulatively significant effect on water infrastructure and supply would:
occur.
Wastewater.- The cumulative area for wastewater-related issues is the Planning Area.
Cumulative population increases and development within the surrounding area would increase
the overall regional demand for wastewater treatment service. However, the District finds that
the proposed Project would not require the expansion of existing wastewater treatment
infrastructure and the contribution of the proposed project would not have a cumulatively
significant impact on wastewater infrastructure.
Solid Waste. The cumulative arca for solid waste-related issues is San Bernardino
County. AB 939 mandates the reduction of solid waste disposal in landfills. With planned
expansion activities of County landfills, it is anticipated that sufficient landfill capacity would
exist to accommodate future disposal needs throughout San Bernardino County. Consequently,
the District finds that cumulative impacts associated with solid waste within the County would
be consideredless than significant.
SECTION 5:: EFFECTS DETERMINED TO BE MITIGATED TO LESS-THAN-
SIGNIFICANT LEVELS
The Final EIR identifies certain potentially significant adverse environmental impacts
resulting from Project activities, The District finds for each of the significant or potentially
significant impacts identified in this Section.. 5, based upon substantial evidence in the record,
that. changes or alterations'have been required or incorporated into the proposed project that
avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect as identified in the Final'EIR. Thus,the
mitigation measures set forth below will reduce the identified potentially significant effects to a-
2297PD15+3342= i3
94i 213.044.a1 I10 OR —37
less-than-significant level, In each potential impact area, the respective Eli analyses are
incorporated as if fully set forth therein.
5.1 Biological Resources
5.1.1 Take of or Modification of the Habitats of Listed Species or Other Special Status
Species(Flood Control activities)
Impact 4.4.2: Continuation of existing flood control operation and maintenance
activities may result in impacts to listed species and/or other special status species or
modification of their habitats.
Flood control activities consist of maintaining existing flood control features such as
dikes,basins, and channels and will not involve the expansion of flood control features or the
consti uction of new flood control features. Flood control operations and maintenance activities
will not change as a result of the proposed project. However, impacts to sensitive species may
occur if flood control activities are conducted in their habitat. This is a significant impact and
mitigation is required.
(a) Nfifigation
Mitigation Measures BIC-1,B10-9,B10-10,BICC-1 , and B10-14 implement
habitat conservation strategies associated with Flood Control areas and flood control activities.
These mitigation measures are listed in full in the significant and unavoidable impacts section
below.
(b) Findings
The District adopts all mitigation identified in the Final EIR. Mitigadon.
Measures BIO-1,B10-9t BTO-10,B10-12,and BIO-14 will minimm' e impacts from flood control
operations and maintenance activities to slenderhomed spineflower,Santa Aria River woollystar,
coastal.California gnatcatcher,San Bernardino kangaroo rat,and Los Angeles pocket mouse
through the management and stewardship of their habitat. With implementation of these
mitigation,measures, impacts to these species and their habitat are reduced to less than
The District finds that no further mitigation is required, and no Project alternatives
need be considered with regard to this impact.
5.1.2 Adversely Affect Federally Protected Wetlands, Riparian Areas or Other
Sensitive Natural Communities(Future Roadway designation)
Impact 4A.7: The designation of rights-of-way for proposed future roadway
improvement projects may result in asubstantial adverse effect on riparian habitats,
jurisdictional areas, or other sensitive natural communities.
Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub is considered to be a sensitive,natural community.
Approximately 16.25 acres of this community would be adversely impacted by the proposed
improvements to Gree nspot Road,Alabama Street,and Orange Strcet-Boulder Avenue. Such
impacts to this plant community would be significant and mitigation is required, During
228r?,101,50*2-0013
941113,04tl 31 1 M08 38.
construction of the Greenspot Road, Alabama Street, and Orange Street-Boulder Avenue
Roadway improvement,jurisdictional weas will be located, impacts assessed, and mitigation
measures identified. Mitigation measures typically include avoidance,replacement, or
participation in in-lieu fee programs such as regional mitigation banks. Even though the Project
only designates friture rights-of-way,in order to ensure that jurisdictional areas are located and
mitigation identified at a later date,mitigation is required. The construction of the roadway
improvements will be the subject of separate environmental documents that will tier off this R.
(a) Mitigation
Biological Resources mitigation measures are described below in the Significant
and Unavoidable Environmental Impacts section. Mitigation Measures B101-1 through B10-1
implement habitat conservation strategies associated with the establishment of a Habitat
Enhancement Plan for the Planning Area. Mitigation Measures BIO-1,BIO-3, and BIO-4 will
mitigate impacts to species associated with the Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub habitat while
Mitigation Measures BIO-5, BIO-6, and BIO-7 will preserve and enhance the quality of
Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub that remains in the Planning Area. The permit proponent
shall implement the following mitigation measure for impacts to jurisdictional areas.
BILI-21: Prior to construction of the Greenspot Road, Alabama Street, and
Orange Street-Boulder Avenue Roadway improvement projects,jurisdictional delineation
surveys shall be prepared by the City of Highland and/or Redlands. The jurisdictional
delineation surveys shall comply with California Fish and Game Code Sections 1600--1616 and
Section 404 requirements from the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers for any discharge of dredged
or fill material in jurisdictional waters of the U.S. A Section 401 Certification from the,Regional
Water Quality Control Board could also be required.
(b) Findings
The District adopts all mitigation identified in the Final EIR. The significance of
impacts to areas of Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub will depend mostly on the habitat value of
those areas for listed and other special interest species.Mitigation Measures BIO-1,BIO-3, and
BIO-4 will only partially mitigate the impacts to those species. Mitigation Measures B10-5,
BIO-6,and B10-7 will preserve and enhance the quality of Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub
remaining in the Planning Area. The permanent loss of 16.25 acres of this plant community
would be reduced to less than significant with implementation of these mitigation measures,
including inception of the future HCP approved by the USFWS.
If jurisdictional areas are identified as part of the Greenspot Road, Alabama
Street,and Orange Street-Bouldcr Avenue roadway improvement projects,C § 401 and §
404 and the State Fish and Game Code§ 1600 ort seq. may apply to this activity. Any such area
is likely to be small in area and isolated from larger more valuable habitat areas-, consequently
impacts will be less than significant through avoidance and mitigation resulting from any ALOE
and/or CDFG jurisdictional permitting actions that may be required. During jurisdictional permit
actions,resources will be located and impacts and mitigation measures identified. Mitigation
measures typically include avoidance, replacement, or participation in in-lieu fee programs such
2287/01504M013
941211,04HIV'07108
..........
as regional mitigation banks. Consequently, the District finds that impacts to riparian habitats
and jurisdictional areas will be reduced to less than significant with.mitigation
In any case,the District.finds that the Project's designation of expanded roadway
and bridge right-of-ways is necessary for the public safety and welfare. If right-of-way
expansion does not occur in the future,transportation air quality,and noise impacts could
increase along existing roadways due to increased traffic(resulting from projected population
growth). The Project ensures the long-terra viability of transportation infrastructure in the
Planning Area by designating land as mailable for future roadway expansion. Even if roadway
designation resulted in unmitigated significant impacts(it does not),the District has adopted all
feasible mitigation measures, and Project alternatives which would lessen roadway designation
impacts (Le no roadway designation) are infeasible because they do not meet Project objectives
5.1.3 Interference with Wildlife Movement or:Migration Corridors
Impact 4.4.8. The proposed relocated Observation Well No. 4 and future water
conservation facilities may result in disturbances to migratory birds,including the burrowing
owl,resulting in a.significant impacts
The District's relocated well and future water conservation facilities will result in the
disturbance of existing habitat frequented by the burrowing owl and other migratory Bird.species.
The Planning Area,including the future water conservation areas,contains large areas of suitable
habitat for seasonal use by the burrowing owl and other migratory birds. Mitigation measures are
required to ensure impacts to the owl and other migratory birds are minimized.
Impact 4,4.9; The proposed aggregate mining expansion may result in disturbances to
migratory birds,including,the burrowing owl,resulting in a potentially significant impact.
The Santa Ana liver Wash provides an important corridor for the east-west movement of
wildlife in the.general project vicinity. This corridor is becoming increasingly important as
upland areas are developed. Portions of this corridor would be narrowed by the expansion of
aggregate mining. The greatest impact of the ruining expansion on the width of this corridor
would occur about 1,500 feet east of Grange Street-Boulder Avenue rear the south end of the
Planning Area.. At this location,the corridor along the active Santa Ana River channel would be
narrowed from its current width of about 1,800 feet,to a width of about 1,100 feet. The resulting
width would still be ample compared with the existing nearby constriction at Orange Street,
There the corridor(active channel)narrows to approximately 500 feet. The restriction in width is
a less than significant impact on a grouted level wildlife corridor and no mitigation is required.
However,the project will result in the disturbance of existing habitat frequented by the
burrowing earl and other migratory bird.species. As described previously,the Planning
including the future water conservation areas,contains large area of suitable habitat for seasonal
use by the owl and other migratory birch. Mitigation measures are required to ensure impacts to
the owl and other migratory birds are minimized.
Impact 4.4.10: The designation of rights-of-way frac proposed feature roadway
improvement projects may result in disturbances to migratory birds, including the burrowing
owl, resulting in a potentially significant impact.
Z287M)5042-0013
M213,0411 al rJ07o0 —40—
With the implementation of the proposed project, the designation of additional rights-of-
way for three streets----Alabama Street,grange Street-Boulder Avenue, and Greenspot Road—
would
oa --would occur. The setting aside of rights-cif-way of the three streets would not have a substantia
impact on wildlife movement or migration corridors;and no mitigation would be required.
However, the project will result in the disturbance of existing habitat frequented by the
burrowing owl and other migratory bird species.As described previously, the planning Area,
including the new rights-of-way for Greenspot Road,Alabama Street, and Orange Street-Boulder
Avenue,contains large area of suitable habitat for seasonal use by the owl and rather migratory
birds. Mitigation measures are required to ensure impacts to the owl and otherrnigratory birds
are minimized.
(a) Mitigation
Impact 4.4.8 Afitigationc The permit proponent shall implement the fallowing:
mitigation measures for impacts to burrowing owls and other migratory bird species.
IIIO-22. As part of the construction of relocated Observation Well No. d and
construction of future water conservation facilities;trees and other significant vegetation that
may provide nesting,habitat for migratory birds shall be removed from the construction areas by
the District between,September 1 and March 1,outside of the nesting season. If trees or other
significant vegetation must be removed during the nesting season, a nesting laird survey shall be
conducted by a qualified biologist no more than 14 days prier to any grading or vegetation
clearing. if nesting lairds are found within the areas to be impacted by the project, the nest and a
100-foot buffer area 00 feet for raptors) around the nest shall be protected and maintained until
the biologist determines that young have fledged and/or the nests are no longer active. The Buffer
area shall be delineated with orange construction fencing.
BIO-23. Prior to construction of relocated Observation Well No.4 and
construction of future water conservation facilities,the District shall conduct a habitat
assessment for burrowing ova=l.If habitat is observed,a focused burrowing owl survey shall be
conducted during breeding season (March l August 31)per approved survey protocol. If
occupied burrows are found.,appropriate mitigation measures shall be implemented which may
include orae or more of the following in consultation with DFO.
• Avoid disturbance within 160 feet of occupied_burrows during non-breeding
season and within 250 feet during breeding season, and/or
• If owls must be moved, passive relocation during the non-breeding season per
DF l recommendations shall be implemented.
• A burrowing owl pre-construction survey shall be conducted by a qualified
biologist no more than lel days prior to any grading or vegetation clearing in
areas with potential borrowing owl habitat not previously mitigated. if nesting
owls or occupied burrows are found within the areas to be impacted, the above
mitigation measure shall be implemented.
2287,M5042-0013 4l_
941213,048 A 1,107109
Impact 4.4.4 Mitigation The raining companies shall implement;the following
mitigation treasures for impacts to burrowing owls and other migratory bird species.
BIO-24; As part of their mining expansion,trees and other significant vegetation
that may provide nesting habitat for migratory birds small be removed;by CEMEX and
Robertson's from the raining areas between September 1 and March 1, outside of the nesting
season.If trees or mer significant vegetation crust be removed during the nesting season, a
nesting bird survey shall be conducted by'a qualified biologist no more than:14 days prior to any
grading or vegetation clearing, If nesting birds are found within the areas to be impacted by the
project, the nest and a I00-foot buffer area(200 feet for raptors) around the nest shall b
protected and maintained until the biologist determines that young have fledged and/or the nests
are no lodger active. The buffer area shall be delineated with orange construction fencing,
BIO-25: Prior to mining within all mining expansion areas,CEMEX and
Robertson's shall conduct a habitat assessment for burrowing owl. If habitat is observed,a
focused burrowing owl survey shall be conducted during breeding season(March l —August 31
per approved survey protocol. If occupied burrows are found,appropriate mitigation measures
shall be implemented which may include one or more of the following in consultation with
CIF
• Avoid disturbance within 160 feet of occupied burrows during non-breeding
season and within 250 feet during breeding season; and/or
* If awls must be moved,passive relocation daring the non-breeding season per
CDFG recommendations shall he implemented.
A burrowing owl pre-construction survey shall be conducted by a qualified
biologist no more than 14 days pricer to any grading or vegetation clearing in
areas with potential borrowing awl habitat not previously mitigated. If nesting
owls or occupied burrows are found,within the areas to be impacted, the above
mitigation measure shall be implemented
Impact 4.4.10 Mitigation: The Cities of Highland and Redlands shall
implement the following mitigation measures for impacts to burrowing owls and other migratory
bird species. These measures will be implemented as part of subsequent environmental review
in accordance with CEQA.
BIC?-26. As part of the Creenspot Load,Alabama Street, and Orange Street
Boulder Avenue roadway improvements,trees and other significant vegetation that may provide
nesting habitat for migratory birds shall be removed by Highland and Redlands from the
construction areas between September 1 and March 1, outside of the nesting season. If trees or
other significa t vegetation must be removed during the nesting season,a nesting bird survey
shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than 14 days prior to any grading or
vegetation clearing. if nesting birds,are found within the areas,to be impacted by the project,the
nest and a 1010-foot buffer area..(200 feet for raptors) around the nest shall be protected and
maintained until the biologist determines that young have fledged and/or the nests are no longer
active. The buffer area shall be delineated;with orange construction fencing.
2218W01504y-0013
941213041 aI1A)WCS —42-
BIO-27: As part of the Greenspot Road, Alabama Street, and € rang;e Street-
Boulder Avenue roadway improvements,Highland and Redlands shall conduct a habitat
assessment for burrowing owl. If habitat is observed, a focused burrowing owl survey shall be
conducted during breeding season(March 1 -August 3 1)per approved survey;protocol. If
occupied burrows are found,appropriate mitigation(measures shall be implemented which may
include one or more of the following in consultation with FG:
• Avoid disturbance within 160 feet of occupied burrows during non-breeding
season and within 250 feet during;breeding season; and/or
• If owls roust be moved,passive relocation during the non-breeding season per
DP"G recommendations shall be implemented,
• A burrowing owl pre-construction survey shall be conducted by a qualified
biologist no more than 14 days prior to any grading or vegetation clearing in,
areas with potential borrowing owl habitat not previously mitigated. If nesting,
owls or occupied burrows are found within the:areas to be impacted, the above
mitigation measure shall be implemented.
(b) Finding
Impact 4,4.8 bindings. The District adopts all mitigation identified in the Final
EIR.. Mitigation Measures BIO-22 and BIO-23 will ensure that ground disturbances associated
with the construction of the relocated well and future water conservation facilities will occur
outside of the breeding seasons for migratory birds including the burrowing owl. With
implementation of these measures,impacts to the burrowing owl and other migratory birds will
be reduced to less than significant. Project-specific impacts to the burrowing owl and other
migratory birds are mitigated to less than significant and it can be expected that environmental
review of the cumulative projects will likely result in the imposition of similar mitigation
measures.The District finds that the incremental increase in impacts to the burrowing owl and
other migratory birds would be a less than significant cumulative impact.
Impact 4.4.9 Findings The District adopts all mitigation identified in the Final
EIR.. Mitigation Measures BIS.}-24 and BIO-25 will ensure that ground disturbances associated
with,the aggregate training expansion will occur outside of the breeding seasons for migratory
birds including the burrowing cowl. With implementation of these measures, impacts to the
burrowing owl and other migratory birds will be reduced to less than significant. Project-
specific
ro ec<tspecific impacts to the burrowing owl and other migratory birds are mitigated to less than
significant and it can be expected that environmental review of the cumulative projects will
likely result in the imposition of similar mitigation measures. The District finds that the
incremental increase in impacts to the burrowing owl and other migratory birds world be a less
than significant cumulative impact.
Impact 4.4.10 Findings: The District adopts all mitigation identified in the
Final EIR. Mitigation Measures.BI -26 and B'10-27 will ensure that ground disturbances
associated with the proposed roadway improvements will occur outside of the breeding seasons
for migratory birds including the burrowing owl, With implementation of these measures,
So52.W13
impacts to the burrowing owl and ether migratory birds will be reduced to less than significant:
Project-specific impacts to the burrowing owl and ether migratory birds are mitigated to less than
significant and it can be expected that environmental review of the cumulative projects will
likely result in the imposition of similar rrutigation measures. The District finds that the
incremental increase in impacts to the burrowing owl and other migratory lairds would be a less
than significant cumulative impact.
5.2 Cultural Resources<
5.2.1 Substantial Adverse Change in the Significance of an Archaeological Resource
Impact 4.5.1. Aggregate mining would cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5 of the Guidelines for California
Environment Quality Act.
Impact 4,5.2: Roadway/Bridge rights-of-way would cause:a:substantial adverse change
in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5 of the Guidelines for
California Environment duality Act
With the implementation of the proposed project, an additional 363 acres would be
devoted to miming uses,bringing the total mining area to approximately 1,1.95 acres. Currently,
a total of 18 known cultural resources have been identified within the planning Area most likely
to be disturbed(by construction of the 51h street access road,the neer access;road, the trail
markings„ and the expansion of mining activities).These 18 cultural resources are listed in graft
EIR Table 4.5:C.
Although a significant portion of the planning Area would remain undisturbed, three
cultural resource sites could be affected with implementation of the proposed.project: (1) CA-
SBR-6075H(a large historic debris scatter); (2) CA-SBR-6076H(four historic debris
concentrations;in and around-intermittent:drainages,including the discovery of new material
during the last site visit); and (3) CA-SBR-6087H (a dense concentration of historic debris).
Further subsurface testing, archrival research, and data recovery is prescribed to ensure that
potential impacts to these three cultural resources are reduced to a less than significant level.
The remaining 15 sites are located in areas that would remain undisturbed or have already been
disturbed by mining activities (e.g., sites CA-SBS',-6{174)x, CA-SBR-6078 H and CA-SBR-
6088H
088H have been disturbed by mining activities). Overall, implementation of the proposed
Project may result in a significant impact to cultural resources.
Additionally, given the physical activities associated with expansions of roads, and
because cultural resources CA-SBR-607511 and CA-SBR-6076H are located directly east of
Orange Street-Boulder Avenue,the proposed roadway improvements in the project-designated
rights-of-way xray result in a significant impact; however, there will be no significant impact of
the designation itself.
(a) Mitigation
In the event that any cultural resource sites would be affected by implementation
of the proposed Project,IMitigation Measures CUL-I through CUL-3 shall be implemented to
ensure a less than significant impact would result.
CUL-1: A qualified archaeological monitor shall be present during initial
ground-disturbing activities in the proposed Planning Area, The monitor shall be empowered to
temporarily halt or redirect construction/mining activities in the vicinity of the find until the find
can be,evaluated by a certified archaeologist.
CUL-2: In the event of a new find, salvage,excavation and reporting shall be
required, The Secretary of the Interior's Guidelines for archaeological documentation shall be
followed by a qualified archeologist.
UL_ If If the archaeological sites CA-SBR-6075H,CA-SBR-6076H, and/or
CA-SBR-6097H cannot be avoided during implementation,of the proposed project,further study
as detailed below shall be necessary for mitigation.
• Subsurface Testing: This would consist of a limited Subsurface data collection
program to help determine the depth and distribution of the resource.
• Archival ResearchlArchival research could yield specific data regarding the
origin and age of found resources/artifacts and place them in a historical
context.
• Data Recovery, If the resource/artifacts are determined eligible for the
California Register of Historic Resources,additional archaeological data
recovery excavations would be necessary.Data Recovery shall consist of a
research design,hand and/or block architectural excavation,laboratory
analysis, research,data recovery report, and curation of collected artifacts,
(b) Finding
The District adopts all mitigation identified in the Final EIR, With the
implementation of the mitigation measures for the proposed project,all impacts to archaeological
resources would be mitigated to a level that is considered less than significant. Cumulatively,
the aggregate mining activities and roadway designation may create or contribute to new or
increased impacts in combination with other projects in regard to changing the significance of an
archaeological resource over and above the impacts discussed in this section. All cumulative
projects would be required to comply with State law in regard to the discovery or disturbance of
archaeological resources. The District finds that similar mitigation measures would be required
for any cumulative projects in the area, which would reduce any potential cumulative impacts to
a level that is less than significanL
5.3 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
5.3.1 Hazardous Material Sites
21,8705042-001)
9412)1'3,£ R #110710 -45-
Contamination has not been identified on the properties operated by the District or other
Project proponents, Water conservation, flood control, and water production maintenance
activities associated with the proposed Project have the remote,potential to uncover previously
undiscovered contamination, The potential for the discovery of unknown contamination related
to an unrecorded well or hazardous materials is'_a less than significant impact, The same impacts,
mitigation,and findings apply to all Project activities.
(a) Mitigation
In the event that hazardous materials acid/tar contaminants are discovered in the
Planning Area,the following mitigation measures shall be implemented.
ITA?-I: The Department of Toxic Substances Control(I TS shall be
immediately notified in the event malodorous or discolored soils,liquids,containers,or other
materials known or suspected to contain hazardous materials and/or contaminants are
encountered during activities associated with the proposed project. Earthmoving activities in the
vicinity of said material shall be halted until the extent and nature of the suspect material is
determined by qualified personnel(as determined by the,DTSQ.The removal and/or disposal of
any such contaminants shall be in accordance with all applicable local, State,and Federal
standards.
HA -2: The Department of Conservation,Division of Oil,Gas, &Geothermal
Resources shall be immediately notified in the event that a previously unrecorded well is
discovered during the course of activities associated with the proposed project. Earthmoving
activities in the vicinity of said material shall be halted until the extent and nature of the suspect
material is determined by qualified personnel (as determined by the Department of Conservation,
Division of Oil,Gas, & Geothermal Resources) and any necessary remedial action is completed.
The removal and/or disposal of any such contaminants shall be in accordance with all applicable
local,State, and Federal standards,
HAZ-3: Prior to the issuance of any pen-nit required for project-related ground-
disturbing activities a site-spccific Phase I Environmental Site Assessment in accordance with
DTSC-standards shall be completed and submitted to the,appropriate jurisdiction for review. In
the event that hazardous materials are discovered, the project applicant shall provide evidence to
the appropriate agency(agencies) that remediation and/or mitigation of said site has been
completed to the satisfaction of the appropriate local, regional, State, and/or Federal entity,prior
to any ground-disturbing activities within 100 feet of any hazardous material site identified
during<a project-specific Phase 1.
HAZ-4: In the event of any identification of or spill of hazardous materials
and/or contaminants in ft. Planning Area, the party whose activity resulted in the spill or release
shall notify the District of the location, extent, and nature of the spill or release.The District shall
thereupon assess the depth to groundwater in the area of the release, and if it appears that
groundwater tables are high enough to create a potential for exposure of the groundwater table to
the spill or release, will modify its recharge operations as much as feasible to prevent
groundwater table intersection with the identified spill or release.
2287101-004'2.0011
2-0011
-46-
(b) Finding
The District adopts all mitigation identified in the Final EIR. All cumulative
projects would be required to adhere to the same mitigation measures listed in this section,which
would reduce impacts to a level that is less than significant. The District finds that adherence to
applicable local,State,and Federal standards along with Mitigation Measures HAZ-1,HAZ-2,
HAZ-3, and HAZ-4 will reduce,the potential impacts associated with the discovery of hazardous
materials and/or contaminants to a less than significant level.
5.3.2 Material and Debris from Trucks
Occasional Project maintenance activities could require the transport of materials by
truck on public roadways and could have a potentially significant impact. Compliance with
applicable laws related to transporting materials in these trucks and the implementation of
Mitigation Measure RAZ-5 will ensure that impacts associated with this issue are reduced to-a-
less than significant level
As is currently the practice,all trucks will meet California Vehicle Code weight
limitations- All open loads will be no higher than 6,0 inches below the top of the track walls.
With the loads lower than the walls of the trucks,materials are less likely to fall out of the back
of bottom-dumping and transfer trucks and cause hazards to motorists. The current practices in
place to prevent failing materials from trucks will continue to be implemented. During the future
project mining operations more vehicles will be usingroads within and adjacent to the Planning
Area. However, the vehicles used in conjunction with materials hauling will travel less on public
streets as the access and haul roads are built. Compliance with applicable laws related to
transporting materials in these trucks and the implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-5 will
ensure that impacts associated with all Project issues are reduced to a less than significant level.
(a) Nfitigation
The following mitigation measure is prescribed to reduce the impact of potential
road hazards from falling materials from trucks to a less than significant level,
HAZ-5: All loads in open street legal trucks shall be no higher than 6.0 inches
below the top of the truck wall or covered and shall besubject to spot inspection pursuant to the
Community Development Directors of the Cities of Highland and Redlands.
(b) Finding
The District adopts all mitigation identified in the Final EIR. With the proposed
mitigation measure and compliance with all applicable local, State, and Federal requirements,the
District finds that potential impacts associated with hazards to motorist from debris and materials
falling from mi.ning detivery trucks associated with the proposed project are less than significant,
including in the cumulative level,
5.4 Hydrology and Water Quality
5.4.1 Additional,Source of Runoff
128M 1$042 0013
941213.04B a I AVOR
Because water conservation activities within the Planning Area typically involve the
routing of water to percolation basins, additional runoff water would not occur. Because this
component of the proposed project would not contribute additional runoff that may provide
additional sources of polluted runoff, no impact would occur and no mitigation is required. The
same holds true for flood control and water production.
As to aggregate mining, delivery,handling, and storage of construction materials and
wastes,as well as use:of equipment onsite, also introduce a risk for stormwater contamination
that could impact water quality, The potential for chemical releases is present at most
construction sites in the form of fuels,solvents, glues,paints and other building construction
materials. Once released,substances such as Bels,oils,paints,and solvents could be transported
to nearby surface waterways and/or to groundwater in'stormwater runoff,wash water, and dust
control water,potentially reducing the quality of the receiving waters.
With implementation of the proposed project, a new access read to Fifth Street and the
addition of pavement to an existing haul road would be constructed. Construction of the new
access road would increase the amount of impervious surfaces that could carry runoff with
pollutants from the road, however,standard water quality procedures are set in place to reduce
the amount of runoff generated` Therefore,the new access road and the paving of an existing
haul road would have a less than significant impact on surroundings and no mitigation is
required-
(a) Mitigation
The following mitigation measures were identified as reducing impacts related to the
operational phase of raining activities,
HYD-1: Prior to ground disturbance activities,a Storm Nater Pollution Prevention Plan
( WPPP)shall be developed or revised by mining proponents for routine mining activities
associated with new excavation meas. The SWPPP shall emphasize structural and nonstructural
131' Ps to control sediment.
YD-2 Prior to ground disturbance activities,a spill prevention control and
countermeasures plan(SPCCP) shall be developed or revised by miming proponents for neva
raining arca activities and shall outline the methods and locations that would be used for disposal
of debris handled or produced on site during excavation. The plan shall also include handling and
clean up procedures for any accidental releases from the excavation site. Disposal of
maintenance/excavation waste is subject to compliance with all applicable waste disposal
i gulations and requirements.
(b) blinding
The District adopts all mitigation identified in the Final EIR, With implementation of'the
erosion,sedimentation, and pollution control measures identified, the District finds that;
operational and reclamation-related water quality impacts would be reduced to less than
significant.
5.4.2 Otherwise Degrade Water Quality
22871015041-0013 41 v
�4T213.04B ll MAJO
The water conservation component of the proposed project is not anticipated to otherwise
substantially degrade water quality as degradation concerns were discussed in previous sections.
The mining component of the proposed project would mine in an area in which the groundwater
level fluctuates from year to year.The mining component would also be within a groundwater
basin in which downstream water is used for municipal uses. Because of the municipal uses
downstream from the project, itis proposed that the mining operator monitor nionthly
groundwater level data from nearby existing wells and observe pit floor conditions in those
portions of the pits where groundwater is at or within 20 feet from the pit bottom to ensure that
mining activities do not impact underlying groundwater,
(a) Mitigation
The maintenance of a 20-foot buffer between existing groundwater and the bottom of the
pit would allow time for emergency cleanup in the event that a spill occurs. In addition, this 20-
foot buffer would also provide filtration for silts and fines before reaching the water table- These
recommendations are incorporated as Mitigation Measure HYD-3,
HYD-3: During the operational phase of each respective quarry,the District shall
review monthly groundwater level data from nearby wells and observe pit floor conditions to
determine the depth of the existing groundwater level. If it is determined that groundwater is
present 20 feet or less from the bottom of the active quarry, active mining shall cease on that
portion of the pit,
(b) Finding
The District adopts all mitigation identified in the Final BIR. With the implementation of
the nutigation measures for the proposed project,the District finds that all impacts related to
water quality would be mitigated to a level that is considered less than significant.
S. Recreation
5.5.1 Construction or Expansion of Recreational Facilities
Impact 4.14.1: The proposed recreational trail rights-of-way designation
activities will result in potentially significant impacts related to an increase in pollutants due to
the increased use of recreational trails.
Recreational facilities included in the project would consist solely of an
interconnecting trails system. All trails would be located on existing service roads, utility
easements, and old railroad beds. Except for the placement of signs indicating that trails and
service roads would serve a dual purpose,there would be .no construction activities associated
with trails. Boulders or similar barricades may be placed to direct trail users away from habitat
conservation,flood control,water conservation, and ruining activities. Even so, the potential
exists for an increase in pollutants resulting from the increased use of recreational facilities.
Passive recreational trail uses typically generate,three types of pollutants: (1) sediment(from
poor management of trails and associated erosion); (2)trash and debris (from users of the trails);
and(3)pathogens(from the deposit of fecal material on the trail). Poor location and
maintenance of trails can cause significant erasion and sedimentation. Because the trails would
228VM5042-0013
-49-
be situated on existing service and maintenance roads,the District finds that erosion-related
impacts associated with this component of the proposed project would be less than significant.
Trash and debris are caused by human activity. Trash and debris in general has
been identified as having a detrimental effect on the recreational value of water bodies and
surrounding habitat, With no mechanism in place,litter can be harmful or hazardous to bodies of
water and to animals that mistakenly ingest debris. By implementing effective outreach
programs and maintenance systems that address these litter sources,the District finds that the
amount of litter generated on the trails that could end up in the various waterways within the
Planning Area would be significantly reduced, The District further finds that Mitigation
Measures REC-01 and REC-02 would reduce the litter that would be generated on the trails.
High levels of bacteria resulting from an increase of fecal material from domestic
pets could occur in the event that such material is deposited into nearby waterways. used on.
public use and maintenance guidelines outlined in Draft EIR Section 3.6.7,it is reasonable to
assume that pet-related pathogens or nutrients would not have a direct pathway from the trails to
the waterways, as vegetated or boulder buffers are anticipated to be provided between the trail
and any sensitive waterways. Vegetation buffers reduce contaminants carried in iunoff by
providing time for sunlight to break down chemicals, absorb nutrients,and protect water quality
in receiving waters from runoff related contaminations, while boulders would act as barriers.
Accordingly,no additional equestrian use,associated with trail designation is
proposed with this Project. Because there are no additional planned equestrian uses for the
Planning Area,there would not be an increase in wastes generated by equestrian use greater than
existing baseline conditions and are., therefore, not analyzed here. As part of the trail component
for the proposed project, owners of pets(e.g.,dogs)would be required to keep pets leashed at all
times while on the trails. Further,by limiting access to the trails to specific hours (daylight) as
well as seasonal restrictions to minimize potential hazards that may occur during extreme
weather events, the possibility of off-leasb pets depositing fecal material directly into the water
bodies is reduced. However,there is still the potential for these contaminants to enter the water
bodies indirectly. Even though there would be a buffer between the trails and the water bodies,
there could be an increase in pathogens in the area due to increased pet use on the trails.
Generally,it is less expensive to prevent contaminants from entering water bodies
than to treat contaminated water. Many contaminants can be prevented from getting into water
bodies through good management practices such as encouraging proper disposal of pet wastes
and litruting access. Mitigation l+ ensures through REC-{ 3 have been identified to
reduce water•quality impacts with respect to fecal material.
(a) Nbitigation
The following mitigation measures are proposed to minimize potential impacts
related to the potential increase in pollutants occurring in the Planning Area from the designation
of recreational trails:
17,2317AA5042-WI 3
94120 048 41 TiON09 -50-
ITEC-41. Prior to implementation of a trail program, a Trails Master Plan shall
be developed and implemented for the Planning Area by the City of Highland and City of
Redlands,which shall identify the following components
• (quantity, style, and location of signs and barricades associated with each trail.
(This may include the requirement to place signs in areas previously disturbed
versus undisturbed area., the use of educational signs informing people to
`iearry in/carry out"trash,andsigns depicting fines for littering.)
• Maintenance schedule for replacement/repair of signs,barricades, and trail
improvements.
• Maintenance schedule for collection of trash (e.g.,weekly, monthly)_
• Maintenance schedule for removal of invasive species for each trail.
• Identification of agency responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of these
trails.
C=0 . Prior to implementation of a trail program,an outreach program shall
e developed by the City of Highland and City of Redlands for the Planning Area,which shall
incorporate and use education and outreach tools,developed and contained in the California
'mater Boards Erase the Waste Campaign. The education outreach program shall facets on litter
and pet waste and include(but shall not be limited to) the following elements:Advertising,
Community Outreach, Strategic Partnerships,Media, Youth Education, and Business and
Stakeholder Outreach.
+C-03. Prior to implementation of a trail program, the City of Highland, City
of Redlands,and County of San Bernardino shall identify public access hours and seasonal
limitations to minimize unauthorized access and use of the trails within the Planning Area as part
of the Trails Master flan.
) Finding
The District adopts all mitigation identified in the Final EI.R, Through the
implementation of these identified mitigation measures, the District finds that impacts of the
proposed activity would be reduced to less than significant.
"6 Transportation and Traffic
5.6.1 Opening Year(2008) Intersection Traffic and Level of Service(LOS)Standard
Impact 4.1:5.1. Impacts to the Palm Avenue/5'h Street intersection would be potentially
significant and require mitigation
Under background conditions in the opening year('2008) scenario, the Palm Avenuel5th;
,Street intersection is forecast to operate at LOS E(Draft EIR Table 4.1 :C), which is below the
acceptable LOS standard of C. All outer intersections are forecast to operate at acceptable LOS.
22871015042-0013 51 m
X391'213049 a11/07M
Under with project conditions in the opening year(2005) scenario, the Palm Avenue/5th Street
intersection is forecast to operate at LOS C (Draft Elly Table 4.15.0), maintaining an acceptable
LOS standard. This improvement occurs because an extension of 3rd Street to 5th Street
primarily as a Lane-way street was assumed as mitigation, to eliminate truck traffic at the Palm
Avenue/5th Street intersection
(a) Mitigation;
To reduce impacts at this intersection to a less than significant lever the following
mitigation measure has been identified-
T C-1 Robertson's aggregate processing plant shall control the
distribution of:commercial haul trucks on local streets to ensure that no new peals hour vehicle
trips are generated. Peak hours are 7:00 a.m. to :00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to :00 p.m.
TRAFFIC-2. Within one year of the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit
(CUP) for the new ruining areas or as otherwise specified in the CUP,the following;
improvements shall be constructed by the permit proponent:
• Third Street: Widen and extend 3rd Street from Palm Avenue to connect to
5th Street at the intersection of Church Avenue/5th Street_ Convert 3rd Street
to a one-way street traveling east consistent with the City of Highland's
planned roadway network and conceptual drawings of 5th Street provided by
the City.
* Church Avenue/5th Street: Add a northbound free right-turn lane:
corresponding to the 3rd Street connection. Restripe the east leg of the
intersection to a six-lane roadway. The restriping to sial lanes can be
accommodated within the existing right-of-way and is consistent both with the
City of Highland's General flan roadway network and conceptual drawings o
5th Street provided by the City. Add a southbound leg to the intersection
corresponding to the 3rd Street connection.
• Truck Traffic and.5th Street Access Road: Truck traffic shall conform to
,access Alternative D as described in the EIR and the traffic impact analysis
for the proposed project. This truck traffic pattern shall be maintained in order
to ensure the safe operation of traffic on 5th Street and enforced by the City of
Highland.
( ) Finding
The District adopts all mitigation identified in the Final EIR. With the
implementation of Mitigation Measures Traffic-1 and Traffic-2, the Palm Avenue 5th, Street
intersection would operate at a satisfactory LOS of C. The District finds that impacts associated
with this issue are reduced to a less than significant level:
5.6.2 Year 21130 With Project Conditions (Intersection) Traffic and Level of Service'
Impacts`
'3287i0I5042.NM3
941113,04 R s11r0710 -52-
Impact 4.15.3: Year 2030 impacts to local street intersections would be
potentially significant and would require mitigation,
With the addition of Project traffic to the year 2030 background scenario,
intersection levels:of service at eight intersections would result in less than the_minimum
standard in the a.m. peak hour,p.m.peak hour,or beth.
Impact 4.15.4: Year 2030 impacts to freeway ramp intersections would be
potentially significant and would require mitigation.
The following two freeway ramp intersections are forecast to operate below
acceptable LOS standards with increases in the delay times as a result of the proposed project.
• R-30 Southbound Ramps/5th Street; and
• SR®30 Northbound Ramps/5th Street.
(a) Mitigation
TRAMC-4: Within erre year of the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit
(CUP)for the new mining areas or as specified in the CxI..TTP the permit applicant shall pay,all
applicable City development impact fees for regional and local circulation and CMP fair-share
fees based on current construction costs estimated at time of payment.Based on the year 2030
analysis prepared for this-1 1R, year 203 ►intersection impacts can be mitigated with
implementation of the following specific improvement measures,which shall be in place by year
2030:
• Palm Avenue/5th Street: Add a westbound left-turn lane'.
• Palm Avenue 3rd Street: Add a northbound riga-turn lane. Restripe the
rightmost northbound through lane as a shared through/fight-tum lane.Widen
the east:leg of the intersection to accommodate two departure lanes.
• Boulder Avenue/ reenspot Road: Resu°ipe the southbound right-torn lane as a
hared through/right-turn lame. Aced a northbound left-tura lane
• Orange Street-Boulder Avenue/Cern x Accessi Add a northbound throw
lane and a southbound though lane.
• Alabama Street-Robertson's Access-Cemex Access: Install a traffic signal and:
add a northbound through lane and a southbound through lane.
T -5. Within one year of the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit
(CUP) for the new raining areas or as specified in the CUP,the permit applicant shall pay all
applicable City development impact fees for regional and local circulation and CMP fair-share
fees based on current construction costs estimated at time of payment. Based on the year 2030
analysis prepared for this EIR,year 2030 impacts can be mitigated with implementation of the;
followingpecifiic improve nmcnt measures, which shall be in place by year 2030:
2?s �1na2.ar t 3
94!21 043 3111 s -53-„
SR-30Southbound vttsl5th Street.Widen 5th Street to two eastbound
through lanes, an eastbound shared through/right-turn lane,a dedicated
eastbound right-turn lane,three westbound through lanes, and two westbound
left-turn lanes. Provide storage length for turn lanes per the traffic study.This
improvement is consistent both with the City of Highland's General Plan
roadway network and conceptual drawings of 5th Street provided by the City.
This improvement would require widening of Greenspot Road under the SR
30 bridge from 80 feet to 110 feet or more.
SR-30 Northbound Rain L15th Street. Widen 5th Street to three eastbound
through lanes, an eastbound left-turn lane, two westbound through lanes, and a
westbound shared through-right-turn lane (wide enough for de facto right-turn
lane).Add a northbound left-turn lane to the off-ramp.Widening of 5th Street
to six lanes is consistent both with the City of Highland's General Plan
roadway network and conceptual drawings of 5th Street provided by the City.
Provide storage length for turn lanes per the traffic study,These
improvements will require widening of Greenspot Road under the SR-30
bridge from 80 feet to 110 feet or more. Approximately 12 feet of additional
right-of-way will also be required on the south leg of the intersection unless
Caltrans approval to re-stripe the off-ramp is obtained.
(b) Finding
The District adopts all mitigation measures identified in the FEIR. With
implementation of the recommended improvements, the minimum level of service standards
would be maintained at the study area intersections where significant Project impacts are
identified. Furthermore, the Project would be responsible for contributing to the City's traffic
and signal impact fees. Therefore,the District finds that a less than significant impact would
occur with implementation of recommended improvements and impact fees.
5.7 utilities And Service Systems
5.7.1 Construction or Expansion of Water Treatment Facilities
In general, the Project components do not require the construction or expansion of new or
existing water treatment facilities. However, the expansion of aggregate mining area requires the
relocation of District Observation Well No. 4. Because this well is utilized for monitoring and
not for production, the relocation of the well to a different area would not be significant since the
replacement of'a well with similar production capabilities would not be needed,
(a) Mitigation
With adherence toMitigation Measure UTM-01, the impacts associated with the
Z�I
relocation of the San Bernardino Valley Water Conservation District No. 4 Well would be
reduced to a less than significant level,
UTIL-01: Prior to mining excavations occurring in East Quarry North within
100 feet of the San Bernardino Valley Water Conservation District Well No. 4, the mining
2287/015042 0011
94�21104B I M7/08 -54-
operator of East Quarry North shall assure an agreement has been documented between the
operator,the District,BLL, and USFWS for the relocation of Well No. 4 to assure the well site
is outside of any ACOE Section 404 or DFG Sections 1600 et seq. permitting jurisdiction, or if
this is not feasible, secure all such required permits prior to beginning construction.
(b) 11nding
The District finds that,with the implementation of Mitigation Measure UTI -01,
impacts related to the relocation of San Bernardino Valley Water Conservation District No. 4
Well would,be mitigated to a level that is considered less than significant.
SECTION 6: SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS THAT CANNOT BE MITIGATED TO LESS-
TRAM-SIGNIFICANT LEVELS (SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS)
Changes or alterations have been incorporated into the Project or will be required as
summarized in the Upper Santa Ana River Wash Land Management And Habitat Conservation
Plan.MMRP,which is attached as Exhibit"C"to the resolution certifying the Final EIR,and is
by this reference made apart hereof. These changes or alterations would substantially lessen or
avoid the identified significant adverse environmental impacts of the Project. Notwithstanding
these changes and alterations,impacts in the following areas would or could remain significant:
aesthetics, air quality,biological resources,mineral resources,and traffic and transportation.
With respect to each significant environmental impact which is not fully mitigated,the
District finds that specific economic,legal,social, technological,or other considerations,
including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the
mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. (Guideline 1091(a)( )
Pub-Resources Code § 21081(a)(3).) In each potential impact area,all mitigation measures
identified in the Final EJR are adopted, and the respective EIR analyses are incorporated as if
fully set forth therein.
6.1 Aesthetics
6.1.1 Adverse Effect on Scenic Vistas/
6.1.2 Adverse Effect on Characteristics of Site.
Impact 4.1.1-. Aggregate mining would degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings.
With respect to water conservation, flood control, and water production activities,the
Project proposes no change in the maintenance or operation of the existing facilities and would
not degrade a scenic vista or the visual character of the existing Planning Area, Similarly,
General Plan amendments,rights-of-way designation, and recreational trails would result in less
than significant impacts. However,aggregate mining, and the accompanying land exchanges,
would degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings,
(a) Mitigation
941211NRal 1107M& -55-
To shield the proposed expansion of the quarry pits from public view and
maintain the existing viewscape as much as possible, the following mitigation measures are
prescribed-
AES-1: Prior to initiating grading for the Silt Pond Quarry,where sufficient space
is available, a berm shall be created and maintained by the mining operator on the northern and
eastern boundaries of the quarry that parallel 5th Street and Orange Street-Boulder Avenue,
respectively. This berm shall be planted by the mining operators with plant species common to
the Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub Community as approved by the District and the,
appropriate jurisdiction. Berm and landscaping plans shall be subinitted to the District,the City
of Highland and/or Caltrans,(if applicable)for review and approval.
AES-2: Within 6 months of the issuance of mining permits,trees at least 15
gallons in size and common to the Planning Area plant community shall be planted by the
mining operator along the western perimeter of West Quarry, where sufficient space is available,
at spacing of 15 feet on center to allow unrestricted growth and to be sufficient to shield the
quarry from view of passing motorists on SR-30.Tree planting plans shall be submitted to the
District,the City of Highland, the City of Redlands and/or Caltrans for review and as necessary.
The trees shall be planted prior to the expansion of the quarry and shall be watered by the mining
operators until established.The trees shall be maintained for the life of the quarry and replaced
as necessary by the mining operator.
AES-3:Trees of a species common to the Planning Area shall be planted by the
mining operator along the eastern boundary of Alabama Street Quarry,where sufficient space is
available, that parallels SR-30.The spacing of the trees shall be, 15' on center to allow
unrestricted growth and to be sufficient to mask the quarry from view of travelers on SR-30.
Tree planting plans shall be submitted to the District, the City of Highland, the City of Redlands
and Caltrans for review and approval,
AES-4- As mining activities are completed, the slopes of the quarries shall be
reclaimed and revegetated by the mining operators per the approved Reclamation Plans with
plant species common to the Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub Community.Reclamation and
revegetation plans shall be submitted to the District and the City of Highland and the City of
Redlands for review and approval.
(b) Finding
The District adopts all initigation identified in the Final EIR. Actions proposed
within the nutigation measures would shield near views of the proposed expansion of the quarry
pits and maintain the existing vie escape as much as possible. However,even with
implementation of Mitigation Measures AES-1 through AESA the District finds that significant
aesthetic impacts upon the proposed Project with respect to the degradation of the visual
character of the site and its surroundings would remain significant and unavoidable.
One of the core Project objectives is tel accommodate the expansion of aggregate
mining quarries to help ensure long-term availability of high quality aggregate reserves located
within they Planning Arcafor local and regional use. The Planning Area is designated MRZ-2
22-M 115%42-0013
941 213 04H a I I t07108 -56-
significant mineral deposits are present), and mining resources within the Planning Area are
defined by the State as regionally significant for economic sustainability. The District finds that:
the Project is necessary to provide economic benefits to the miring companies,their employees,
and the local and state economy, as well as practical benefits to end-user construction companies
and property owners (present and future)in San Bernardino and adjacent counties. The District
finds that it has adopted all feasible mitigation measures, and Project alternatives which would
lessen this impact are infeasible because they do not meet Project objectives or exceed the
Project's overriding economic considerations.
6.1.3 Cumulative Aesthetic Impacts
The,proposed project would have an adverse effect on scenic vistas across the
Nash Plan through substantial charges in the characteristics of the site, and with the
implementation of mitigation,these potential impacts would remain significant and unavoidable
The future widening and construction of roadways identified above would contribute tight and:
glare impacts in the form of vehicular lighting;however,as existing roadways,light and glare
impacts currently occur and new sources of light and glare would not be introduced. The volume<
of vehicles traveling on these roadways is not expected to increase to the point that a significant
light and glare impact would result. There are no projects that would,in combination with the
proposed project,result in any significant impact to scenic vistas,scenic resources,or character
of the site and its surrounding; The cumulative aesthetic impact of conversion of currently un-
mined property to mining uses,even though such converted properties will be concentrated into
areas adjacent to already disturbed areas, would remain significant and unavoidable.
(a) Mitigation
No mitigation in addition to that listed above is feasible.
) Finding
The District's cumulative aesthetic impact findings are the same as above.
6.2 Air Quality
6.2.1 Long-Term Regional Emissions
Impact 4.3.1; The proposed aggregate mining activities will result in potentially
significant impacts related to a net increase of criteria pollutants for which the project region is in
nonattainr ent under an applicable Federal or State ambient air Anality standard.
Long-terra air emission mpacts are those associated with stationary sources and;
mobile sources involving any project-related change. The proposed project would result in both
stationary and mobile sources. Long-term regional emissions refer to the past-construction
operational activities and their emissions analyzed against regional thresholds. Of the proposed
Project activities, only the proposed aggregate minting activities will result in potentially
significant impacts-related to a net increase of criteria pollutants for which the Project region;is
in nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. Mining and
228705042-0013
941213(98 aIE V7108 -57
hauling activities would result in combustion emissions from heavy-duty construction vehicles,
haul trucks, utility engines, and vehicles transporting the mining crews.
(a) Mitigation
The following mitigation measure is proposed to minimize potential impacts,
related to the potential increase in OX occurring in the Planning Area from aggregate mining
activities of the proposed project.
Air 1: The mining operators,Cemex and Robertson's,shall comply with Article
4.8 In-Use Of Diesel-Fueled Fleets,Section 2449 Emission Standards for In-Use Off-
Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets(GARB;July 27, 2007) and any other applicable, subsequent rules,
regulations, and requirements to the extent that is technologically feasible.
(b) Finding
The District adopts all mitigation identified in the Final EIR. The emissions of
NOx are expected to exceed the SCAQMD thresholds and are expected to exceed State ambient
air quality standards ("AAQS"). While there are control measures regulating emissions of
heavy-duty vehicles, there is no way to quantify the reduction of these emissions. The District
finds that impacts remain significant and unavoidable.
One of the core Project objectives is to accommodate the expansion of aggregate
mining quarries to help ensure long-term,availability of high quality aggregate reserves located
within the Planning Area for local and regional use. The Planning Area is designated MRZ-2
(significant mineral deposits are present), and raining resources within the Planning Area are
defined by the State as regionally significant for economic sustainability. The District finds that
the Project is necessary to provide economic benefits to the mining companies, their employees,
and the local and state economy, as well as practical benefits to end-user construction companies
and property owners (present and future)in San Bernardino and adjacent counties. In addition,
air quality impacts from expanded mining will be at least partially be offset, on a cumulative
basis, by avoided future vehicle trips that would otherwise be required to import needed sand and
gravel resources from outside the region, should permitted local reserves become exhausted.
The District finds that it has adopted all feasible mitigation measures, and Project alternatives
which would lessen this impact are infeasible because they do not meet Project objectives or
exceed the Project's overriding economic considerations.
6.2.2 Expose Sensitive Receptors to Substantial Pollutant Concentrations.
Impact 4.3.2: The proposed aggregate mining activities will result in potentially
significant impacts related to exposure of substantial pollutant concentrations to sensitive
receptors.
On-site mobile source emissions include aggregate haul trucks, dozers, loaders,
scrapers, graders, on-site maintenance vehicles,etc. Emissions from this equipment category are
dependent upon the aggregate removal rates from the quarry and the distance that these materials
must be hauled for delivery to the processing facility. On-site stationary source emissions
include those from the aggregate processing facilities,asphalt plants, and any other on-site
228V 15042-0013
441213 04B a 1119796645
stationary sources such as electrical generators. Control measures include baghouses (dust
collection devices) and water sprays to control dust emissions. All of these einissiort sources are
controlled separately by the SCAQMD's permitting process. Additionally, fugitive dust
emissions from aggregate mining activities are expected to increase as a result of the proposed
Project, Overall,the proposed aggregate mining activities will result in potentially significant
impacts related to exposure of substantial pollutant concentrations to sensitive receptors.
Fugitive dust emissions would also result from the routine maintenance of
facilities for the District, SBCFCD,E and RMLJD from vehicles traveling on unpaved
roadways,but those impacts are considered less than significant.
(a) Mitigation
Mitigation measures that have been identified to reduce the level of emissions of
particulate matter shall include:
AIR-2: The emissions of diesel particulate are expected to result in carcinogenic
health risks that exceed the AQ MD thresholds at nearby sensitive receptors. Applicable
mitigation measures may include the following:
• Heavy-duty diesel equipment shall have exhaust particulate traps as certified
and/or verified by EPA or California installed, if available.
• Heavy-duty diesel equipment shall be fitted with the most modem emission
control devices and be kept in proper tune to minimize construction vehicle
omissions,where feasible. This measure shall be monitored by the
construction manager.
AIR-3: The two operators,Comex and Robertson's, shall schedule transportation
of material such that both operators are not transporting material on the same day from the south
half of the southeast quarter of Section 11,which is the area farthest from both processing plants.
(b) Finding
The District adopts all mitigation identified in the Final FIR. With
implementation of standard regulations associated with SCAQMD Rules 402,403, and 1157 and
the continuation of stationary emission requirements and dust control measures that are required
by the SCAQMD,the impact%of on-site mining operations related to P)1410 and PM2,3 le-Vels,
would be minimized, but still significant, 'Mitigation Measures AIR-2 and AIR-3 lists measures
that have the potential to reduce dim] particulate emissions;however, there is no way to
quantify any reduction accomplished by these measures. Thus,the District finds that the impacts
of on-site mining operations on diesel particulate levels would be minimized,but still significant.
Once again.,one of the core Project objectives is to accommodate the expansion of
aggregate mining quarries to help ensure long-term availability of high quality aggregate
reserves located within the Planning Area for local and regional use. The Planning Area is
designated NIRZ-2 (significant mineral deposits are present),and mining resources within the
Planning Area are defined by the State as regionally significant for economic sustainability. The
_728M[502-0013 -59-
94121104B al 1107108
District finds that the Project is necessary to provide economic benefits to the training companies,
their employees, and the local and state economy, as well as practical benefits to end-user
construction companies and property owners (present and future) in San Bernardino and adjacent
counties. The District gads that it has adopted all feasible mitigation measures, and Project
alternatives which would lessen this impact are infeasible because they do not meet Project
objectives or exceed the Project's overriding economic considerations
6.2,3 Cumulative Impacts'
The cumulative area for air quality impacts is the South Coast Air Basin., The Basin is in
nonattainment for ozone (03),Pas and PIM15 at the present time. Implementation of the
proposed project, in conjunction with other planned developments within the cumulative study
area, would contribute to the existing nonattainment status by generating ozone precursors (CO,
NCx., and RCC), P1Vlaaa and PM2:5 emissions. 'Therefore, the proposed project would delay the
attainment of air quality standards within the Basin and contribute to cumulative air quality
impacts.
(a) Mitigation
No mitigation in addition to that lasted:above is feasible.
7 Finding
The District adopts all mitigation identified in the Final EIR. The District finds
that no feasible mitigation will eliminate all of the Project's contribution to the Basin}s existing
nonattainrraent status. Eliminating all contributions would require no Project, and even then
existing cases will still contribute to nonattainment status,though to a lesser degree, No
alternative eliminates all cumulative air quality impact, and certainly not while achieving the
P'roject's objectives,especially the accommodation of expanded aggregate mining quarries.
6.3 biological Resources
6.3.1 Take of or Modification of the Habitats of Listed Species or Other Special
Status Species,
Impact 4.4.1: Relocation of the District's is Observation Well No. 4 and
construction of future water conservation facilities may result in impacts to listed species and/or
other special status species or modification of their habitats.
The project would result in the District's Observation Well No.4 being displaced
y aggregate mining. This well would meed to be reconstructed outside the mining area on the
upstream,dry side o "D"dike and percolation basin. "D" dike and basin are located toward the
center of the Planning Area in a north-to-south-trending direction. Because maintenance roads
already exist and are used to service`elfY'dire and basin, these same existing roads will be used
to access relocated Observation Well No, 4. Although the precise location of the relocated well
is not known and neither is the amount of acreage that will be impacted, the District estimates
that ups to 2 acres of laid will be permanently impacted with the relocation of Observation Well
No. 4.The specific well site would be determined in coordination with the BLM and USFWS-
22VM 5041013
when the well is to be relocated,because the new locationwill be on BLIT property after the
land exchange with the District. Construction of the relocated well may result in up to'22 acres of
lost habitat to the four listed species and the Los Angeles pocket mouse--in addition to several
non-listed special interest species identified in the Final EIR—affecting individual member,-,of
these species.This is a significant impact requiring mitigation.
Additionally,there is a future possibility that the District will need to construct
and operate additional water conservation facilities to accommodate future water recharge from
non-District water rights resulting from the Integrated Water Management Plan (IRWMP). Still
in its infancy, the IRWIMP will set forth a coordinated surface water and groundwater
mumagement system for the region. Because the specifics of the IRWMP are not known,it is
unclear whether new water conservation facilities will be needed,how many will be needed,how
large each facility will be, or where they will be located. Nonetheless,this EIR provides
mitigation for potential impacts to biological resources resulting from such future facilities.
Because the location of relocated Observation Well No.4 and location and number of future
water conservation facilities are not known, they are analyzed at a programmatic level in this
EIR. If the new site or sites for Observation Well No.4 or the future water conservation
facilities are within Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub or Riversidean upland sage scrub, these
construction activities may impact individuals or habitat of one or more of the following sp-mies
listed as threatened or endangered under FESA and/or CESA-
As a result,the Project will set aside 732 additional acres of managed habitat over
and above the 1,215 acres of managed habitat that currently exists within the Planning Area. In
order to ensure the 732 acres of managed habitat will provide for the long-term survival of the
four listed species and the Los Angeles pocket mouse,mitigation measures will be implemented.
Impact 4.4.3: The proposed aggregate mining expansion may result in impacts to
listed species and/or other special status species or modification of their habitats.
Similar to the previous discussion regarding water conservation impacts to listed
species and/or other special status species or modification of their habitats, the proposed mining
expansion may impact individuals and habitat of the slender-homed spineflower,Santa Ana
River woollystar,coastal California gnatcatcher, San Bernardino kangaroo rat,and Los Angeles
pocket mouse and their habitats, Although reclamation of mined areas may restore some habitat
for these species,the restored habitat is not expected to be of the quality of the habitat prior to
n-rining,
Aggregate mining land uses of the proposed Project include: (1)continued
material processing and quarry expansions of existing sand and gravel mines; and(2)
reclamation.of all processing and quarrying areas following completion of mineral extraction.
The existing mining footprint covers 832 acres; with the proposed project, the combined
footprint of Cernex and Robertson's quarries and associated facilities would total 1,195 acres, an
approximately 44 percent increase in acreage(363 acres). Expansion of mining would remove
342 acres of habitat potentially suitable for the Santa Ana River woollystar, slender-horned
spineno,wer, and San Bernardino kangaroo rat while removing up to 347 acres of habitat
potentially suitable for the California gnatcatcher and Los Angeles pocket mouse. These impacts
represent between I I percent and 13 percent of the total habitat within the Planning Area that is
22817/015042-0013
-61-
potentially suitable for those species. Impacts to habitats of the four listed species and the Los
:Angeles pocket mouse are significant and mitigation is required
In addition,proposed East:Quarry North(Cemex) will result in expansion of
mining into an area currently planned by the USFWS for transplantation or relocation of the
slender-horned spineflower. This area encompasses approximately 2.5 acres of undisturbed,land
with a high concentration of the slender-horned spineflower.. This area is encompassed by a
larger area that has not been disturbed by past raining activities. The USFWS, in a coordinated
effort with Cemex and the District,has prepared a draft Slender-horned Spineflower
Enhancement and relocation plan (SLERP) dated November 2007(see Draft EIR Appendix E-
2). The SLED will be included as part sof the HCP for the Planning Area.
Impact 4.4.4: Construction of roadway improvements may result in impacts to
listed species and/or other special status species or modification of their habitats.
With the implementation of the proposed Project,the designation of additional
rights-of way for three streets,Alabama Street,Orange street-Boulder Avenue, and Greenspot
Road would occur. This EIR provides programmatic analysis of these potential impacts,
although additional CEQA documentation will be required by the Cities of Highland and/or
Redlands when/if construction occurs. potential cumulative impacts from the construction of
these roadway improvements may occur in the form of direct effects to individual members of
listed.species (slender-horned spineflow r,Santa Ana River woollystar,San Bernardino
kangaroo rat,and coastal California gnatcatcher) and the Los Angeles pocket mouse species
and/or their habitats. Improvement of these roadways to their ultimate widths will result in a
permanent loss of 49;3 total acres of habitat and a temporary lass of 28.7 acres of habitat. This is
a significant impact and mitigation is required.
(a) Mitigation
Impact 4.4.1 Mitigation The District shall implement the following mitigation
measures to reduce the significant impacts to listed plant and animal species and Los Angeles
pocket mouse and their habitats.
BI0-1: The District shall prepare and implement a Habitat Enhancement Plait
within the proposed Habitat Conservation, Flood Control, and;Water Conservation areas within
the Planning Area. The goals of the habitat Enhancement Plan are to maintain adequate habitat'
for the slender.-horned.spineflower,Santa Ana Diver woollystar, coastal.California gnatcatcher,
San Bernardino kangaroo rat, and Los Angeles pocket mouser to prevent colonization of exotic
plant or animal species within the Planning Area; and to avoid degradation of water quality
within the Santa Ana River, Plunge Creek, and Mill Creels.
flI0_2t The Habitat Enhancement Plan shall include surveys for, and eradication
of, exotic aquatic species in the recharge basins, surveys for, and eradication of, mon-native plant
species,and trash removal. The habitat Enhancement t Plan will establish preliminary measures
to be included in the Upper,Santa Ana liver HCP to be approved by US S, At a minimum,
the specific:measures set forth in the habitat.Enhancement Plan shall be included in the
Conditional Use Permits for the proposed quarries, as appropriate in the operating plans of the
2:F71015042 t D 13
941213,04H al 110VOS -62-
District, and in accordance with the modifications to the specific measures as ultimately
contained in the approved HCP.
B10-3: The Habitat Enhancement Plan shall maintain approximately 1,662 acres
of Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub(including pioneer,intermediate,mature and combinations
with non-native grassland) in the Habitat Conservation area along the Santa Ana River,Plunge
Creek,and Mill Creek with a minimum decline of 10 percent(166 acres)from existing
conditions or a minimum of 1,496 acres,of Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub at any given time.
1910-4: The Habitat Enhancement Plan shall maintain approximately 374 acres
of Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub (including pioneer,intermediate,mature, and
combinations with non-native grassland) in the Planning Area along the Santa Ana River,with a
Minimum decline of 10 percent(37 acres)from existing conditions or a minimum of 337 acres of
Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub.
RIO-5: The Habitat Enhancement Plan shall maintain intermediate and
intermediate/mature Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub at minimum in a similar portion to the
existing baseline of the three primary stages of alluvial fan sage scrub conserved within the
Planning Area with an allowed 15 percent decline of intermediate and intermediate/mature
Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub combined from existing conditions to account for natural
successional processes. Intermediate and intermediate/mature alluvial fan sage scrub currently
account for 1,372 acres(67%)of the baseline total within the Habitat Conservation and Water
Conservation areas. The minimum allowable amount of intermediate and intermediate/mature
Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub would be 1,059 acres (52%).
BIO-6: The Habitat Enhancement Plan shall maintain approximately 121 acres
of chamise chaparral(including eh se chaparral within combinations of chamise
chaparraYnonnative grassland vegetation types)in the Habitat Conservation area along the Santa
Ana River, Plunge Creek, and Mill Creek, with a minimum decline of 10 percent(12 acres)from
existing conditions or a minimum of 109 acres of chamise,chaparral (including chamise
chaparral within combinations of chamise chaparral/non-native grassland vegetation types).
B10-7: The Habitat Enhancement Plan shall maintain approximately 50 acres of
chamise,chaparral (including chamise chaparral within combinations of chamise
chaparral/nonnative grassland vegetation types)in the Planning Area, with a minimum decline of
10 percent (5 acres)from existing conditions or a minimum of 45 acres of chamise chaparral
(including chamise chaparral within combinations of charnise chaparral/non-native grassland
vegetation types).
BIO-8.- The Habitat Enhancement Plan shall maintain at least 64 wetted acres of
recharge basins within the Planning Area.
1110-9: The Habitat Enhancement Plan shall, under the direction of the District,
include a survey conducted in the summer of each year to determine the extent and type of non-
native vegetation present in the Habitat Conservation,Water Conservation, and Flood Control
areas in the Planning Area. Non-native species currently present in the Planning Area include
tree tobacco(Nicotiana glauca),tocalote (Centaurea melitensis),Russian thistle(Salsola
228110t�04ZVOO
9412t104B at U37108 -63-
tragus),Spanish broom (S'partium unceum), and castor-bean (Ricinus communis)(Lilburn
1997). During the surveys; the approximate area containing the nonnative species and their
density will be estimated. The frequency of these surveys shall be reduced to every other year if
no patches of non-native species are found for four consecutive years. Surveys for non-native
aquatic species (e.g,,bullfrogs,crayfish, mosquitofish, and snapping turtles)known to be
detrimental to western spadefoot shall be conducted annually in the spring or summer.
BIO-10: The Habitat Enhancement flan,shall,under the direction of the District,
include the removal of nein-native, invasive plant species found during the annual surveys using
methods that will not harm individual members of the Santa Ana River woollystar,coastal
California gnatcatcher,San.Bernardino kangaroo rat,and Los Angeles pocket mouse or their
habitat,or cause pollutants to eater the Santa dna River,Mill Creep,City Creek,:or Plunge
Creel.Eradication shall be accomplished using hand tools or pulling individual plants by hand.
For many annual species,this will likely involve cutting the plants (one or more times)before
they set seed.
BIO-11: The Habitat Enhancement Plan shall, under the direction of the District,
include removal of non-native aquatic species (e.g.,bullfrogs and crayfish) found during the
surveys utilizing methods currently approved by the USFWS that minimize the potential for
impacts to the western spadefoot. Potential methods include traps,.seine,dip net,hand,and
spear/gig. Removal shall be by biologists who can distinguish the non-dative,species (including
egg and tadpole stages)from the native species to be protected. Eradication shall not be
conducted when western spadefoot eggs are present.
BIO-12: The Habitat Enhancement Plan shall,under the direction of the District,
include a program to control Argentine amts within the Habitat Conservation, Water
Conservation, and Flood Control areas and within 300 feet ofthese areas within the Planning
Area. The Argentine ants shall be controlled through elimination of water sources where;
feasible and treatment of nests. Queens and larvae in the nest will be controlled;primarily
'
through the use of granular toxic bait(e.g.,Talstar). The integrated pest management program:
shall include annualinspection to determine presence of colonies, treatment of identified
colonies, and site re-inspection after one month to determine efficacy of the treatment. Specific
pest control recommendations shall be mane by a State-licensed Category A.best Control
Advisor. The specified areas shall be monitored annually in the summer or fall. The frequency
of these surreys shall be reduced to every other year if no Argentine ants are found for four
consecutive years. A report detailing the program shall be prepared annually,
BIO-13: The Habitat Enhancement Plan shall, under the direction of the District,
employ fencing(three-strand wire fencing) around entry points and post signage to control:
unauthorizedtrail use by off-road vehicles and garbage and trash dumping.
BIO-14- The Habitat Enhancement Flan shalt, under the direction of the
SBCFCD and the District,restrict vehicular traffic associated with routine operation and
maintenance activities within the Habitat Conservation area to daylight hours to avoid roadkill of
San Bernardino kangaroo rats and Los Angeles pocket mice.
2287/01.5042.0013
BIO-15., The Habitat Enhancement Plan shall, under the direction of the District,
ensure that Best Management Practices(BMPs) are employed during maintenance operations at
the recharge basins to avoid impacts to water quality.
BIO-16: The Habitat Enhancement Plan shall, under the direction of the District,
ensure that trails,and 100-foot wide buffers on each side of the trails or roads where these
buffers fall within the Planning Area, shall be monitored on a quarterly basis for the presence of
trash,which could be washed into the Santa Ana River,Mill Creek,or Plunge Creek during
storm events. All trash shall be removed by hand during the quarterly surveys.
Impact 4.4.3 Mitigation: Previously described Mitigation Measures BIO-1
through BIO-16 implement habitat conservation strategies associated with the establishment of a
Habitat Enhancement Plan for the Planning Area. The following Mitigation measure to further
reduce the significant impacts to listed plant and animal species and to Los Angeles pocket
mouse and their habitats shall be implemented by the mining operators.
RIO-17: The mine operators shall implement reclamation and reg egetation
concurrent with ongoing mining per the Mine and Reclamation Plans approved by the Cities of
Highland and Redlands.
B10-18: Cemex shall be prohibited from mining the area encompassed by the
Slender-horned Spineflower Enhancement and Relocation Plan (SLERP)until such time that the
SLERP has effectively transplanted or relocated all members (or a sufficient number as
determined by USFWS) of the slender-horned spineflower from the SLERP area, or the USFWS
determines the SLE RP ineffective and abandons the program.
Impact 4.4.4 Mitigation: Previously described Mitigation Measures 1310-1
through BIO-16 implement habitat conservation strategies associated with the establishment of a
Habitat Enhancement Plan for the Planning Area.
(b) Finding
Impact 4.4.1 Findings: The District adopts all mitigation identified in the Final
EIR. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO- 16 will minimize impacts to
slender-horned spineflower, Santa Ana River woollystar,coastal California gnatcatcher, San
Bernardino kangaroo rat,and Los Angeles pocket mouse through the management and
stewardship of their habitat via the establishment of a Habitat Enhancement Plant for the Planning
Area. Although the Habitat Enhancement Plan will create an additional 732 acres of managed
habitat,238 acres of land (84 acres of Rivergidean alluvial fan sage scrub,94 acres of
Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub, and Riversidean upland sage scrub) and its associated habitat
value,will be permanently removed due to the construction and operation of future water
conservation facilities, Even though the lost habitat from future water conservation facilities will
be replaced on site at an approximately 3.0 to 1.0 ratio (732 -238=3.08),there would remain a
loss of habitat area,available to these species. Also, the newly created managed habitat area
already exists in an undeveloped/natural state within the Planning Area and already is providing
natural habitat for these species. Although portions of the proposed 740 acres of Water
Conservation and 165 acres of Habitat Conservation areas will remain as natural habitat, even
22S71015OV-0013
1)41213 04B a I 11MY08 -65-
with implementation of these mitigation measures, the District,finds that impacts to the slender-
homed spineflower, Santa Ana River woollystar, coastal California gnatcatcher,San Bernardino
kangaroo rat, and Los Angeles pocket mouse and their habitat remain significant and
unavoidable.
The District notes that these mitigation measures provide the groundwork for the
Habitat Conservation Plan ("HCP") that will be approved for the Upper Santa Ana River Wash
as part of a subsequent federal(National,Environmental Policy Act)environmental document. It
is further noted that the HCP may include additional or differing implementation measures.
However, the mitigation measures set forth in this EIR have been created in accordance with
CEQA for the purposes of reducing impacts to the slender-horned spineflower,Santa Ana River
woollystar,coastal California griatcateber,San Bernardino kangaroo rat,and Los Angeles pocket
mouse and their habitats to the greatest extent feasible. The HCP may include measures to
provide stewardship for additional species over and above the,five species specifically addressed
in this EIR. In addition,approval of the HCP would lead to issuance of an"incidental take"
authorization from the USFWS for impacts to the four listed species and loss of designated
"critical"habitat. This authorization would follow the issuance of a Biological Opinion by the
US FWS and either concurrence or separate authorization by the CDFG. The Biological Opinion
will state whether the requested activities will result in jeopardy of any listed species becorning
extinct. Implementation of the Wash Plan habitat management component win occur via these
authorizations,which will be based upon a HCP to be submitted to the USFWS when the Wash
Plan is approved. The habitat enhancement plan funding will be determined through the
implementation of the Habitat Enhancement Plan in connection with the HCP to be proposed to
the USFWS, and any Habitat Management Plan approved in connection therewith.
In light of the foregoing, the District finds that no feasible mitigation measures or
Project alternatives will eliminate this significant and unavoidable environmental impact to
biological resources. The Project's objectives include the relocation and expansion of aggregate
mining quarries(which necessitate,-,the relocation of Observation Well No.4), and the District's
continued ability to replenish the Bunker Hill Groundwater Basin with native Santa Ana River
water using existing and potential future water recharge facilities in the Planning Area. The
District finds that these activities are economically vital and necessary for thepublic interest(i.e.
the provision of high quality aggregate reserves located within the Planning Area for local and
regional use, and the maintenance of an adequate water supply for the surrounding populations).
Furthermore,the adopted mitigation measures advance the Project objective--and corresponding
environmental benefit--of setting aside and maintaining habitat for sensitive,threatened, or
endangered species populations in the Planning Area, and preventing colonization of the
Planning Area by non-native plants and animals,
Impact 4.4.3 Findings: The District adopts all mitigation identified in the Final
EIR. Implementation of previously referenced Mitigation Measures 1310-1 through BIO-16 and
Mitigation Measures BID-l`7 and BIO-18 will minimize impacts to individuals and habitats of
listed and other sensitive species, Although Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO--1 will
establish a Habitat Enhancement Plan for the Planning Area and,in so doing create an additional
732 acres of managed habitat, an additional 363 acres of land and its associated habitat value will
be permanently removed due to mining expansion. As discussed previously tinder existing and
future water conservation facilities, implementation of future water conservation facilities will
2287015042-W1 s
941213,04H a I I OWN -66-
impact an additional 238 acres,for a total impact of 608 acres (363 +238=601) of critical
habitat impacted from,mining and future water conservation facilities. Even though the,lost
habitat from mining and future water conservation facilities will be replaced on site at an
approximately 1.2 to I ratio (732-601 = 1.22), there would remain a loss of habitat area
available to these species. Also, the newly created managed habitat area already exists in an
undeveloped/natural state within the Planning Area and already is providing natural habitat for
these species. Therefore,the District finds that impacts to listed species (slender-homcd
spireflower, Santa Ana River woollystar,San Bernardino kangaroo rat,and coastal California
gnatcatcher)and the Los Angeles pocket mouse will remain significant and unavoidable even
with-implementation of mitigation.
The District finds that no feasible mitigation measures or Project alternatives
eliminate this significant and unavoidable environmental impact. One of the core Project
objectives is to accommodate the expansion of aggregate mining quarries to help ensure long-
term availability of high quality aggregate reserves located within the Planning Area for local
and regional use. The Planning Area is designated MRZ-2(significant mineral deposits are
present), and mining resources within the Planning Area are defined by the State as regionally
significant for economic sustainability. The Project is necessary to provide economic benefits to
the mining companies,their employees, and the local and state economy, as well as practical
benefits to end-user construction companies and property owners(present and future) in San
Bernardino and adjacent counties. The District finds that it has adopted all feasible mitigation
measures,and Project alternatives which would lessen this impact are infeasible because they do
not meet Project objectives or exceed the Project's overriding economic con,siderations.
Moreover,the District finds that the Project expands aggregate mining quarries in
the most environmentally responsible manner by ensuring that the most appropriate and best-
suited lands for each of the competing and irreconcilable uses are dedicated to that use. To do
so, the Project provides for a land exchange between the District and the Bureau of Land
Management to: (1)focus mining extraction activities on lands currently in or near mining
disturbances, i.e. lands with the least long-term wildlife habitat value;and(2)preserve the most
intact, contiguous and viable biological habitat areas as open space, even where such lands are
currently used for water conservation and contained within future mining leases. The Project
also provides for a land exchange between the San Bernardino County Flood Control District and
Robertson's Ready Mix,Ltd. resulting in a larger Santa Ana River Woollystar preservation area.
The District finds that,but for the Project, some of the most intact, contiguous and viable
biological habitat areas would be subject to mining and water conservation disturbances, leaving
only previously disturbed or fragmented lands to be preserved.
Impact 4.4A Findings.- The District adopts all mitigation identified in the Final
EIR. mitigation Measures 1110-1 through BIO-16 will mmimize temporary and permanent
impacts from the construction of new sections of roadway within the Planning Area through the
establishment of a Habitat Enhancement Plan. The Habitat Enhancement Plan will reduce
impacts from the loss of habitat associated with these future roadway improvements through the
management and stewardship of slender-horned spineflower, Santa Ana River woollystar, San
Bernardino kangaroo rat, coastal California gnatcatcher, and the Los Angeles pocket mouse
habitats. With implementation of these mitigation measures, the District finds that impacts to
these species, and their habitat are reduced to less than significant,
22871015042-0013
941213,04B a I V07/03 -67.
However,as discussed previously under Water Conservation
Operations/Maintenance Activities of the District and Expansion of Aggregate Mining,
implementation of future water conservation facilities and aggregate mining will impact a total
of 601 acres(238 +363 =601) of critical habitat. The proposed roadway project will impact an
additional 47 acres for a total impact of approximately 648 acres from future water conservation
facilities,mining,and roads. Even though the lost habitat from these three project components
will be replaced on site at an approximately I.13 to 1.0 ratio (732-648 = 1.16), the District
finds that there would remain a cumulative loss of habitat area available to these species and the
impact will remain significant and unavoidable even with implementation of mitigation.
Although contributing to a cumulatively significant impact(and hence listed in this Section of
the Findings), the District finds that impacts associated with roadways attributable to the
approximately 47 acres,of lost habitat are considered to be less than significant with
implementation of the Habitat Enhancement Plan via Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through 1310-
16.
In any case, the District finds that the Project's designation of expanded roadway
and bridge right-of-ways is necessary for the-public safety and welfare. If right-of-way
expansion does not occur in the future,transportation,air quality, and noise impacts could
increase along existing roadways due to increased traffic (resulting from projected population
growth). The Project ensures the long-term viability of transportation infrastructure in the
Planning Area by designating land as available for future roadway expansion. Even if roadway
designation resulted in unmitigated significant impacts (it does not), the District has adopted all
feasible mitigation measures, and Project alternatives which would lessen roadway designation
impacts(i.e. no roadway designation) are infeasible because they do not meet Project objectives
6.3.2 Adversely Affect Federally Protected Wetlands, Riparian Areas or Other
Sensitive Natural Communities
Impact 4.4.5: Relocation of the District's Observation Well No.4 and
construction of future water conservation facilities may result in substantial impacts to riparian
habitats,jurisdictional areas as defined by the ACOE and CD FG, and other sensitive natural
communities,
Although the well relocation and location and number of future water
conservation facilities are not expected to have a significant impact on riparian areas or federally
protected wetlands because these areas are generally absent from the vicinity due to the
widespread occurrence of well drained substrates (used for water percolation and sand and gravel
mining)and these areas no longer contain river flows due to the advent of the Seven Oaks Dam,
small jurisdictional areas may be encountered during their construction. Because precise
delineation of ACOE and CDFGjurisdictionaI areas is not feasible for the entire Planning Area
and the precise location of the relocated well and future water conservation facilities is not
known, these activities may affect riparian habitats,jurisdictional areas, and other sensitive
natural communities. This is a significant impact and mitigation is required. Furthermore, the
incremental increase in impacts to sensitive natural comm.unities would be considered a
significant cumulative impact.
2287XI5042-0013
941213,04 B a;I V1,108 -68-
Additionally, Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub ("RAFSS") is considered to be a
sensitive natural community and approximately 189 acres of this community is found within the
proposed water conservation area. used on a potential impact of 31 percent(as discussed in the
DEI ),59 acnes of this community would be adversely impacted by the future water
conservation facilities. In addition,future water conservation facilities outside of the proposed
Water'Conservation area within the District's Phase 3 area would impact an additional 25 acres
of this community for a totat impact of 84 acres of RFSS. This is a significant impact and
mitigation is required.
Impact 4.4.6: The proposed aggregate mincing expansion may result in a
substantial adverse effect on riparian habitats jurisdictional areas, or other sensitive natural
communities.
The proposed Project is expected to have a minimal impact on riparian areas or
federally protected wetlands because these areas are generally absent from the vicinity due to the
widespread occurrence of well drained substrates (used for water percolation and sand.and gravel
mining). RAFSS occurs where jurisdictional areas are most likely to also occur,along the active
channels of the Santa Ana River, City Creek,Plunge Creek, and bill Creek. It appears the
proposed mining expansion willnot affect any mapped areas of this community type as can be
seen by examining Draft EIR Figure 4.4.3. Thus,impacts to wetlands and riparian resources are
not expected to be significant due to the general absence from,the Planning Area. However,
small jurisdictional areas may be impacted by raining expansion.A precise delineation of ACRE
and.CDFG jurisdictional areas is not feasible for the entire Planning Area;therefore,these areas
must be identified during each phase of the proposed mining projects. Any such area is likely to
be small in area and 'isolated from larger more valuable habitat areas;consequently impacts are
expected to be less than significant and more readily avoided or mitigated. Jurisdictional
impacts from the proposed expansion of mining may also occur in relation to the construction of
the 5th Street access road and extraction of sand and gravel,from the Plunge Creek Qua
Lastly, RAFSS is Considered to be a sensitive natural cornrraunity. Approximately 342 acres of
this community would be adversely impacted by the expansion of aggregate n-fining_ Such
impacts to this plant community would be significant and mitigation is required;.
(a); Mitigation
Impact 4.4.5 Mitigation: Previously described Mitigation Measures BTO-I
through 1110-16 implement habitat conservation strategies associated with the establishment of a
Habitat Enhancement Plan for the Planning Area. Mitigation Measures BIO-1, BIO-3, and BILI-4
will mitigate impacts to species associated with the Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub habitat
while;Mitigation Measures 1310-5, BIO-6,and B10-7 will preserve and enhance the quality of
Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub that remains in the Planning Area. The following mitigation
measure shall be implemented by the District to reduce impacts to riparian habitats and other
jurisdictional areas from relocation of the District's Observation Well No.4 and construction of
future water conservation facilities.
BIO-19: Prior to construction of relocated Observation Well No. 4 and
construction of future water conservation facilities within the District's Phase 1;2,and 3 areas,
jurisdictional delineation surveys shall be prepared by the District for those areas demonstrating
22VAP 5042-0013
riparian habitat and historic river flows. The jurisdictional delineation surveys shall comply with
California Fish and Game Code Sections 1600-1616 and Section 404 requirements from the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers for any discharge of dredged or fill material in jurisdictional waters of
the U,S. Section 401 Certification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board could also be
required.
Impact 4.4.6 Mitigation: Previously described Mitigation'Measures B10-1
through BIC}-16 implement habitat conservation strategies associated with the establishment of a
Habitat Enhancement Plan for the Planning Area. Mitigation Measures BIO-1,B10-3, and B10-
4 will mitigate impacts to species associated with the RAFSS habitat while Mitigation Measures
B10-5,BIO-6, and BIO-7 will preserve and enhance the quality of RAFSS that remains in the
Planning Area.
The permit proponent shall implement the following mitigation measure for
impacts to jurisdictional areas.
BIO-20: Prior to construction of the 5th Street Access Road and mining within
the Plunge Creek Quarry,jurisdictional delineation surveys shall be prepared by Robertson's.
The jurisdictional delineation surveys shall comply with California Fish and Game Code
Sections 1600.1616 and Section 404 requirements from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for
any discharge of dredged or fill material in jurisdictional waters of the U.S. A Section 401
Certification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board could also be required.
(b) Finding
Impact 4.4.5 Findings: The District adopts all mitigation identified in the Final
]SIR. The significance of impacts to small jurisdictional areas of riparian areas or federally
protected wetlands and to larger areas of RAFSS will depend mostly on the habitat value of those
areas for listed and other special interest species. Mitigation Measures BIO-1,B10-3, and B10-4
will only partially mitigate the impacts to those species. Mitigation Measures BIO-5,B10-6, and
B10-7 will preserve and enhance the quality of RA-FSS remaining in the Planning Area. The
Habitat Enhancement Plan,through management and stewardship of slender-horned spineflower,
Santa Ana woollystar, San Bernardino kangaroo rat,the coastal California gnateatcheT,and the
Los Angeles pocket mouse,will reduce impacts from the loss of habitat associated with water
conservation activities. However, the District finds that the permanent loss of 84 acres of this
plant community would remain significant even after implementation of these mitigation
measures.
The District finds that no feasible mitigation, measures or Project alternatives will
eliminate this significant and unavoidable environmental impact to biological resources. The
Project's objectives include the District's continued ability to replenish the Bunker Hill
Groundwater Basin with native Santa Ana River water using existing and potential future water
recharge facilities in the Planning Area, This activity is necessary for the public interest(i.e. the
maintenance of an adequate water supply for the surrounding populations).
Impact 4.4.6 Findings: The District adopts all mitigation identified in the Final
EIR. The significance of impacts to areas of Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub will depend
-70-
213,0411 at M/08
mostly on the habitat value of those areas for listed and other special interest species. Mitigation
Measures BIO-1,BIO-3, and BIO-4 will only partially mitigate the impacts to those species,
Mitigation Measures BIO-5, BIO-6, and BIO 7 will preserve and enhance the quality of RAFSS
remaining in the Planning Area. The Habitat Enhancement Plan,through management and
stewardship of slender-horned spineflower, Santa Ana woollystar, San Bernardino kangaroo rat,
the coastal California gnatcatcher, and the Los Angeles pocket mouse, will reduce impacts from
the loss of habitat associated with aggregate mining. However, the District finds that the
permanent loss of 342 acres of this plant community would remain significant even after
implementation of these mitigation measures,
If jurisdictional areas are identified in the proposed P Street Access Road and
Plunge Creek Quarry,CWA§ 401 and§ 404 and the State Fish and Game Code§ 1600 et seq.
may apply to this activity. Anysuch area is likely to be small in area and isolated from larger
more valuable habitat areas;consequently impacts will be less than significant through avoidance
and mitigation resulting from any ACOO and/or CDFG jurisdictional permitting actions that may
be required. During jurisdictional permit actions,resources will be located and impacts and
mitigation measures identified. Mitigation measures typically include avoidance, replacement,
or participation in in-lieu fee programs such as regional mitigation banks. Consequently,the
District finds that impacts to riparian habitats and jurisdictional areas will be reduced to less than
significant with mitigation.
Notwithstanding the potential permanent loss of 342 acres of RAFSS habitat, the
District finds that no feasible mitigation measures or Project alternatives will eliminate this
significant and unavoidable environmental impact to biological resources. One of the core
Project objectives is to accommodate the expansion of aggregate ntining quarries to help ensure
long-term availability of high quality aggregate reserves located within the Planning Area for
local and regional use, The Planning Area is designated MRZ-2(significant mineral deposits are
present),and mining resources within the Planning Area are defined by the State as regionally
significant for economic sustainability. The District finds that the Project is necessary to provide
economic benefits to the mining;companies, their employees,and the local and state economy,as
well as practical benefits to end-user construction companies and property owners(present and
future)in San Bernardino and adjacent counties. The District finds that it has adopted all
feasible mitigation measures, and Project alternatives which would lessen this impact are
infeasible because they do not meet Project objectives or exceed the Project's overriding
economic considerations.
6.3.3 Cumulative Biological Resources Impacts
Projects evaluated for the cumulative analysis include those in the Planning Area
with impacts to habitats similar to those that would be impacted in the Planning Area(primarily
RAFSS). This land cover type provides habitat for listed species(slender-horned spineflower,
Santa Ana River woollystar,and San Bernardino kangaroo rat);consequently, incidental take
authorizations from the US are necessary for these projects. Implementation of mitigation
measures would benefit the long term conservation of protected species and their habitat
however; these mitigations only partially mitigate cumulative impacts, Therefore,cumulative
impacts on biological resources will remain significant.
a287101.5042-0013
041211048 at IMM -71-
....... ....
(a) Mitigation
No mitigation in addition to that listed above is feasible,
(b) Finding
The District adopts all mitigation identified in the Final EIR. The District finds
that no feasible mitigation will eliminate all of the Project's contribution to cumulative
Biological Resources impacts. Eliminating all Project cumulative contributions would require no
Project, and would thus fail to any Project objectives—particularly the objective to aside and
maintain habitat for sensitive, threatened, or endangered specie-;populations in the Planning
Area, and prevent colonization of the Planning Area by non-native plants and animals
6.4 Mineral Resources
6.4.1 Cumulative Mineral Resource Impacts
Because there would be a greater amount of aggregate materials excavated than originally
allowed within the Planning Area and because Surface Mining and Reclamation Act
("SMARA")regulations would continue to be implemented within the San Bernardino
Production-Consumption Region, the District finds that cumulative impacts are realistically less
than significant, The Project proposes to expand existing mining operations, adjacent to existing
quarries,by some 305 acres, In this sense,additional reserves are cleared for mining and
regional use, and the Project results in an increase, rather than a loss, of available mining
reserves.
Still,the District acknowledges that the entire Planning Area fits within region designated
as MR -2 identified as an area of potential significant mineral deposits. Even though existing
land uses as defined for the Project for mining presently amount to 900 acres, this MRZ-2
designation applies to acreage included under other defined existing land uses as well. The
Project proposes to place some 753 acre in habitat conservation, which will prohibit any long-
term exploitation for mining. It will also designate 745 acres for future water conservation,
which will also preclude mineral extractions. While there may be some question regarding the
practical ability to permit these areas under existing regulatory constraints for mining, the Project
will still commit these areas to uses other than mining, and they will be lost to future potential
mineral exploitation.As such, and to this extent, the District finds that there will be a loss of
regional mineral resources, which given the features and objectives of the Project, cannot be
mitigated. The District recognizes this effect as cumulatively significant.
(a) Mitigation
The District finds no feasible mitigation exists.
(b) Finding
The District finds that, even though the ProJect will result in the dedication of
some potential mineral resources to habitat and water conservation, the Project actually results in
a greater ability for mineral extractors to obtain permits for mining aggregate resources. The
228'hO15'042-0013
941'27$04B a 11107/08 -72-
Project objectives include a balance of uses, and the District finds that the Project--and not its
alternatives—provides the best balance of heretofore irreconcilable uses in the Planning Area in
the most environmentally and economically beneficial means possible.
6.5 ')transportation and Traffic
6.5a Year 2008 With Project Conditions (FreewaySegments) Traffic;and Level
of Bernice impacts
Impact 4.15»2t Impacts to freeway segments would be potentially significant
and require mitigation.
With the addition of project traffic to the year 200$ background scenario,freeway
levels of service at the following segments would operate at an unsatisfactory level of service:
• SR-30 Northbound 5`h Street Off-Ramp Influence:;area.This segment
would continue to operate at L08 F conditions:
• R-30 Southbound Sth Street!fin-Ramp Influence Area.This segment
would continue to operate at LCIS F conditions.
The CMP level of service standard for freeway segments is LOS E. These
freeway level of service deficiencies are also forecast to occur in the year 2008 without project
conditions;'therefore, the Project would not produce these deficiencies in LCIS alone.
Nonetheless,the Project does contribute to the baseline level of service deficiencies,resulting in
a significant impact, and mitigation is required.
(a) Mitigation
The following mitigation measure was identified to reduce impacts associated
with unsatisfactory levels of service on freeway segments ents using the year 2008 with project
scenario,
TRAFFIC-3: Within rine year of the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit
(CUP) or as otherwise specifier)in the CUP, the perrrrit proponent shall pay City impact fees as
delineated in the respective City's Development Impact Fee program and.CMP'fair-share fees
based on current construction costs estimated at time of payment. Fair-share fees shall include
acceleration lanes for the ,Sly-30 northbound and southbound on-ramps.
(b) Finding
The District adopts all mitigation identified in the Final EIR. The project does
recognize incremental traffic impact-,to existing conditions can freeway on and off-ramps.
Improvements to the freeway segments are within the responsibility and,jurisdiction of Caltrans:
As such, there is no mechanism for the District,as lead agency,to impose upon development
project proponents fees or fair-share contributions toward improving mainline freeway lanes..
Responsible agencies implementing the project,and in particular the Cities of Highland and
Redlands, do have such authority, however. As such, the F iTR imposes a mitigation measure
1213.044 alit6 0
i
that calls for such responsible agencies to impose fair-share portions of development impact fees
relative to contributions to funding a proportionate sere of improvements to address these
conditions. Notwithstanding this mitigation, the P'roject's incremental impacts would retrain.
significant and unavoidable until such time as Caltrans or co-sponsor can install the
improvements. Because freeway segment modifications are controlled by Caltrans,the schedule
of completing improvements is not in the hands of local agencies or private sponsors. The
District finds that no feasible mitigation:measures exist to fully mitigate these impacts, and no
alternative satisfies the Project's objectives,particularly economic considerations resulting from:
aggregate mining.
6.5.2 Year 2008 With Project Conditions (Freeway Segments) Traffic and Level
of Service Impacts
Impart 4.15.5: Impacts to freeway segments in the year 2030 would be potentially
significant and require:mitigation.
With the addition of project traffic to the year 2030 background scenario,freeway levels
of service at all segments would operateat less than the minimum service standard:
• SR-30 Northbound 5th Street Off-Ramp Influence Area..This segment would
continue to operate at LOS F conditions:
• SR-30 Northbound 5th Street:(fin-Ramp Influence Area..This segment would continue
to operate.at LOS F conditions.
• Sly.-30 Southbound 5th Street tiff-damp influence Area.This segment would,
continue to operate at,LOS 1~conditions..
• Sly-30 Southbound 5th Street On-Ramp Influence Arca.This segment would d continue
to operate at LOS F conditions:
to Mitigation
ation
Because freeways are under the control of Caltrans;there is no feasible
mechanism for the project applicant or City of Highland to construct freeway mainline
improvements that would mitigate identified freeway segment inap<act .
(b) Finding,
The District adopts all mitigation identified in the Final EIR. The project does
recognize incremental traffic impacts to existing conditions on freeway segments. Improvements
to the freeway segments are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of C31trans. As such,there
is no mechanism for the District, as lead agency,to impose capon development project proponents
fees or fair-share contributions toward improving mainline freeway lanes. The Project's
incremental impacts would remain significant and unavoidable until such time as Caltrans or co-
sponsor can install the improvements. Because freeway segment modifications are controlled by
Caltrans,the:schedule of completing improvements is not in the hands of local agencies or
privatesponsors. 'rhe District finds Haat no feasible rmitigation measures exist to fully mitigate
22871015042,JO�3
94121 A.04B al I lUb
these impacts, and no alternative satisfies the project's objectives, particularly economic
considerations resulting from aggregate mining
6:5.3 Cumulative Traffic and Transportation Impacts
The District adopts all mitigation identified in the Final BIR. Traffic volumes for the
opening day plus project scenario are based on a sure of existing traffic,estimated traffic frena..
list of approved and pending projects,and estimated:traffic'from the proposed project. This
yields a cumulative analysis,based on the list of projects approach consistent with CEQ.A. As
described previously, the Project will contribute to significant impacts at intersections located i
the immediate Project vicinity. The significant impacts arc forecast to occur with or without
implementation of the Project and are therefore cumulative in nature., Because several of the
improvements to the affected freeway ramp intersections will be included in future yet to be
determined improvement projects sponsored by Caltrans or SAINBAG,the Project proponent has
no control over the specific timing of when the improvements will be constructed. As a result,
the District finds that these cumulative impacts remain significant and unavoidable until such
time as the improvements are constructed,.
Traffic volumes for the year 2030 plus project scenario are based on forecast traffic
volumes from the City's traffic model. This yields a;cumulative analysis,based on the
projection's approach consistent with CE A: ,As described previously,specific improvements to
two intersections are required to maintain the City of Highland's level of service standard. The
improvement measures defined are consistent with the City's General plan. Given the long-term
time frame for when these improvements will be needed,their implementation is not needed
until traffic volumes reach the levels estimated for the 2030 scenario. Consequently, the project
will be responsible for contributing toward the Rending of the future improvements via payment
of the City's development impact fee for regional and local circulation and payment of CMP
fair-share fees, which the [district finds to result in a less than significant cumulative impact,
(a) Mitigation
No mitigation in addition to the previously identified traffic mitigation is feasible;
(b) Finding
The District adopts all mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR, While this
impact remains significant and unavoidable, no feasible mitigation measures exist and no
alternative satisfies the Project's objectives, particularly economic considerations resulting from
aggregate mining,
SECTION 7 MITIGATION MEASURES`WITHIN THE,JURISDICTION AND
CONTROL OF OTHER AGENCIES
The District has adopted all of the initiation measures identified in Sections 5 and 6
above. Some of the measures identified in Sections 5 and b are also within the jurisdiction and
control of other agencies.. To the extent any of the mitigation measures are within the
jurisdiction and control of other agencies,the Board finds those agencies can and should:
implement those measures within their jurisdiction and control The project's Mitigation
2287M15042 0033
9x41';I' O48 a @ 1 r" 7f(9 -75-
3
Monitoring and Reporting Program lists the agency or agencies responsible for monitoring each
mitigation measure .
2287/015042,0013
411213.114$at 1107008 —76—
SECTION ga PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
8.1 In making these findings, the Districtcertifies that it has independently reviewed and
considered the information on alternatives provided in the Final MR. The Final EIR's discussion
and analysis of these alternatives are not repeated in these findings, but the discussion and
analysis of the alternatives in the Final E1R are incorporated in these findings by reference,
8.2 The District finds that the range of alternatives studied in the Final ElR reflects a
reasonable attempt to identify and:evaluate various types of alternatives that would potentially be
capable of reducing the proposed Project's environmental effects while accomplishing most but
not all of the Project objectives. Upon full evaluation, many of the alternatives were found to b
capable of reducing the environmental impacts of the Project. However, none of the alternatives
is found to be capable of fully achieving the Project objectives. The District finds that the
alternatives analysis is sufficient to inform the Board and the public regarding the tradeoffs
between the degree to which alternatives to the proposed Project could; reduce environmental
impacts and the degree to which the alternatives would hinder the District's ability to achieve its
Project objectives.
8.3 The Final E1R describes and evaluates four(4) alternatives'to the proposed Project Each
of these alternatives offers one or more environmental advantages in comparison to the proposed
Project. However, as set forth in sections 5 and 6 above, the District has adopted mitigation
measures that substantially mitigate the significant environ,mental effects of the ;Proposed=
Project. .As explained in the District's Statement of Overriding Considerations, which' is
attached as Exhibit 1113" to the resolution certifying the Final EIIR while these mitigation
measures will not mitigate all Project impacts to a less than significant level, they will mitigate
those impacts to a level that the District has determined are acceptable, given the inherent
balance-of uses that is at the core of the objectives of the Project. Furthermore, the District finds
that on balance, each of the alternatives is unable to;satisfy the Project objectives to the same
degree as the proposed Project. The District further finds that, on balance, none of these
alternatives to the proposed Project has environmental advantages over the proposed Project that;
are sufficiently great to justify approval of the alternative instead of the proposed Project, in light`
of each alternative's inability to satisfy the Project objectives to the same degree as the proposed-
Project. Accordingly, the District has determined to approve the proposed Project instead of
approving one of the alternatives to it
8.4 In making this determination, the District Bands that when compared to the alternatives
described and evaluated in the Final ETR, the proposed Project, as mitigated, provides a
reasonable balance between implementation of the Project objectives and reduction of potential
environmental impacts to as acceptable level. The district further finds and determines that the
proposed project should be approved, rather than one of the alternatives, for the reasons set forth
below.
.5 Description of Project Objectives
.s stated above,the overarching Project objective is to balance the ground-disturbing
activities of aggregate mining,recreational activities, water conservation,and other public
2287M 5042-0013
services with quality, natural habitat for endangered,threatened, and sensitive species. Specific
Project ol3jectives include:
• Ensure the continued ability of the District to replenish the Bunker Hill Groundwater
Basin with native Santa Ana River water using existing and potential future water
recharge facilities in the Planning Area;
• Ensure the continued ability of the San Bernardino County Flood Control District
("SBCFCD") to protect land and property by managing the floodwaters of the Santa
Ana River and its local tributaries (Mill Creek, Plunge Creek, and City Creek);
• Set aside and maintain habitat for sensitive, threatened, or endangered species
populations in the Planning Area, and prevent colonization of the Planning Area by
non-native plants and animals, all serving as mitigation for impacts from other
aspects of the Project, such as mining and the designation of areas for future
roadways or water spreading facilities;
• Accommodate the relocation and expansion of aggregate mining quarries, to help
ensure long-term availability of high quality aggregate reserves located within the
Planning Area for local and regional use,consistent with the MR. -2 designation for
reserves in this area, and to do so on land adjacent to existing quarries, that is largely
already disturbed;
• Accommodate arterial roads and highways to provide safe modes of travel; and
• Provide trails for public enjoyment of the existing environment.
8.6 Discussion and Findings Relating to the Alternatives Evaluated in the Final EIR
Alternative 1: No Project Alternative
The No Project Alternative would not change the activities that are currently taking place
within the Planning Area. Aggregate mining would continue as it does now in the baseline
condition of the Project producing 4.5 million tons per year("MTPY") to 7.4 MTPY as is
currently permitted. No changes to habitat areas would take place,no new trails or public road
rights-of-way would be established and no land exchanges would take place. Under the No
Project Alternative, the mining operators are presumed to mine to completion the existing
permitted mining acreage of 832 acres, but no additional mining permitting is presumed. Total
estimated available tonnage of aggregate under this alternative is 43 million tons. This compares
to 184 tons expected for the proposed Project.
As detailed further below,the No Project alternative is not recommended for
implementation under this FIR, however, because it fails to meet a number of the,defined project
objectives,
Alternative 2: Relocation of Future Mining Activities
228710150,12-0013
-78-
Alternative 2 allows the largest area to be dedicated to expanded aggregate mining and
the least amount of area dedicated to water conservation.Water conservation would be limited to
the reclaimed borrow pit in the northeast portion of the Planning Area. Habitat preservation
would be reduced due to expanded mining and no land exchange. Alternative 2 expands mining
throughout the north-central portion of the Planning Area into the northeast portion to include
more mining acreage than the proposed project, although the amount of yearly aggregate
production would remain the same as the proposed project at 6MTPY, Alternative 2 is expected
to yield approximately 220 million tons of aggregate, as compared to 184 million tons for the
proposed Project. This alternative basically presumes mining of the Planning Area to the extent
of existing mineral leases,and therefore extends mining into the north half of Section 12
(Cemex), the Cone Camp Quarry in Section 7 (Robertson's),and presumes the continuation of
existing silt pond activities permitted on existing BLM property in Section W.
This alternative would involve no land exchanges between either the District and BLM
nor Robertson's and the SBCFCD.This alternative would require coordination with the INIWD
for a haul road crossing its Inland Feeder Pipeline right-of-way between Sections 12 and 7. The
new 5th Street access would be constructed under this alternative and annual mining production
would be the same as the proposed project, 6 MTPY. Old Rail Line Trail and Cone Camp Trail
would be lost to mining and there would be no connection to the Borrow Pit South Rim Trail.
The Alabama and GTeenspot trails would continue, and the project would continue with the
biological clearance for additional rights-of-way on Alabama Street,Greenspot Road, and
Orange Street-Boulder Avenue,
This alternative would lessen the significant impact recognized from the proposed project
of long-term loss of available mineral reserves,since significantly greater amounts of acreage the
proposed project does not propose to mine would become available to meet regional aggregate
demand. In most other respects,however,environmental effects would be greater under this
alternative. This alternative was selected for detailed analysis because it represents the Wash
Plan participants' conception of the way the Planning Area would be mined absent the proposed
project. This alternative was essentially the "Plan A"from which the Wash Plan(then called
"Plan B")sprang, and allows a meaningful comparison of the proposed project with conditions
as they were envisioned under existing leases, without the proposed project. Under this
alternative,some mitigation of the biological impacts associated with expanded mining,and with
potential relocation of water spreading basins for water conservation, would still be needed, This
mitigation would have to come from the District's dedication of remaining unmanaged habitat
areas, the operators' acquisition of off-site mitigation areas,payments of mitigation fees or
contribution to mitigation banks,or a combination of all of these. This is recognized as a major
question in the feasibility of implementing this alternative.
Alternative 3.- Maintain Existing Rate of Mining but in Proposed Quarries
Alternative 3 expands the areas to be rained to the central northeast portion of the
Planning Area but would continue the existing baseline condition for aggregate production
allowing 4.5 MTPY to be extracted. The Robertson's land exchange with the SBCFCD would
take place as it would in the proposed project, allowing a contiguous Santa Ana River Woollystar
Preservation Area along the south of the Planning Area. IMining activities would be allowed in
the north,half of Section 12 portion of the Planning Area, The BL 1' land exchange with the
2287/015042-0013
-79-
District would not take place.Trail rights-of-way would be established in somewhat the same
manner as they would in the proposed project,but the Old Rail Line Trail would be lost to
nuning.Mining haul and access roads would not be constructed as a part of this alternative, and
this alternative would require an allocation agreement between Cemex and Robertson's as to the
amounts of available tonnage to be rained by each, since Robertson's leased Cone Camp Quarry
would be unavailable while Cernex's,Section 12 leased area would be rained,giving
disproportionate reserves to Cernex.Total tonnage would be approximately equal to the
proposed project, at 184 million tons. Mining truck traffic would continue to use the existing
routes on public streets. This alternative would require BLM approval of a haul road,but would
not require any project-related amendments to the South Coast Regional Management Plan.This
project alternative was selected primarily because it decreases aesthetic impacts to the area in
and around the Orange Street-Bouldcr Avenue right-of-way, which under the proposed project is
mined out, on both sides,from the northern boundary of the Planning Area to the southem
boundary, except for the existing Orange Street Plant.
Alternative 4: Reduced Mining Production Rate and Proposed Quarry Alternative
Alternative 4 is similar to the proposed project, with the exception of a 25 percent
reduction in the geographic area of new mining to be undertaken, This alternative presumes that
the area immediately south of the East Quarry North, and immediately east of the East Quarry
South,would not be mined.This area of approximately 89 acres is roughly equivalent to 25
percent of the increase in mining area,totaling 363 acres, in the proposed project.The total
aggregate yield expected from this alternative is 158 million tons. Under this alternative, the 5th
Street access would still be constructed and the ruining production levels would remain at 6
MTP . The land exchanges with both the BLAI and the District,and Robertson's and the
SBCFCD, would occur. This alternative was selected because it reduces significant impacts to
biological resources. As shown in Draft EIR Figure 4.4.4,this roughly 89-acre area does contain
portions of Santa Ana River woollystar populations, that would go undisturbed as a part of this
alternative,but that are lost under the proposed project, In addition, this area is nearer to the
Santa Ana River Woollystar Preserve Area(WSPA) and, if left unmined, would provide
available habitat for potential future mitigation purposes,on potential other projects in the
Planning Area. Under the Reduced Mining Footprint Alternative, short-term impacts to air
quality and traffic would be expected to be similar to those of the proposed project, although
long-term cumulative impacts may be decreased.The 6.0 MPTY production rate would make the
air quality analysis for short-term impacts essentially the same as the proposed project, since that
analysis was conducted on an annual emissions basis. In the long term, however, the reduction
by approximately 25 percent of the mining area,can be expected to result in a shortened life of
the prqiect. As such,cumulative air quality impacts,or the time over which the annual air quality
impacts would be generated,would be decreased. With respect to traffic,the analyses for traffic
were reviewed using the year 2030 as the projected future date, and the traffic impacts would be,
expected to extend at least until that date, even under the Reduced Mining Footprint Alternative,
Again, long-term cumulative impacts, to both local streets and to freeway on-ramps and Gaff
ramps,would likely be reduced, due to the shortened life of this alternative. In addition, aesthetic
impacts generated by the proposed project would be.somewhat reduced by this alternative, based
on a reduction in mined area,
8.6.1, No Project Alternative Findings
2787,015042-WI3
94 1213,048 a I I MV08
With the No Project Alternative, the Planning Area would continue to operate as it does
now. The beneficial actions of the land transfers and the additional lands for habitat
conservation in order to consolidate and preserve habitat,and the management of said lands
under the HCP wound not occur as part of the No Project Alternative. Direct impacts associated
with the destruction of existing habitat would not Jnr since the areas proposed for raining
would not be mined. The proposed Project would have a significant unavoidable impact on
transportation and traffic,but in terms of traffic on local streets,to a lesser degree than.the No
Project Alternative. The proposed Project would increase the areas to be ironed„ and though it
would limit production to Er MTPY,it will stillresult in a greater in a number of total daily truck
trips on local roads,compared to the existing baseline. In addition, the internal haul and access
roads proposed as part of the project would reduce the number of trucks on local roads and
impacts to local intersections. The No Project Alternative therefore foregoes the local traffic
improvements afforded by the Project, and has incrementally greater traffic impact. As part o
the No Project Alternative there would be no trails and therefore no recreational benefits, no
mitigation for read and bridge rights-of-way affecting public safety, no potential future
additional water recharge areas affecting water supply,no additional habitat lams and habitat
management affecting sensitive species, and no land exchanges of lesser or impacted BLM, lands
for better quality and undisturbed habitat.
The District finds the No Project Alternative to be infeasible because it fails to meet a
number of the defined economic social,etc.project objectives,including
• Set aside and maintain habitat for sensitive,threatened,or endangered species in the
Planning Area,and prevent;colonization by non--native plants and animals, as
mitigation for impacts from Cather aspects of the project, such as nruning,designation
of areas;for future roadways or water spreading facilities;
• Accommodate the relocation and expansion of aggregate mining quarries to help
ensure the long-term availability of high quality aggregate reserves located within the
Planning Area for local and regional use., consistent with the MRZ-2 designation or
reserves in this area, and do so on land adjacent to existing quarries,that have mostly
been disturbed,
• Accommodate arterial roads and highways to provide safe modes of travel; and
• Provide trails for public enjoyment of the existing environment.
8.6.2 Mining of Existing Lease Areas Alternative Findings
Under the Mining of Existing Lease Areas Alternative, visual resource impacts associated
with the aggregate mining'component would be increased in comparison to the proposed project:
Cumulative air quality and traffic impacts associated with the aggregate mining component
would be greater under this alternative'than it would under the proposed project. This alternative
would allow mining in large tracts of undisturbed land that would Meet wildlife connectivity
and corridors between.the Sara Bernardino Mountains and the Santa Ana River. The
consolidations of the better undisturbed habitat through the land exchanges and additional lands
planned for habitat conservation, management of the habitat lands throughout the Wash, and an
228VO15042.0013
9,11211040 as V07108 $d
overall HCP would not occur. Therefore, biological impacts with Alternative 2 are considered
greater than the proposed Project.
Because impacts to the cultural resources are unknown,impacts associated with these
resources may be greater under the aggregate mining component for this alternative than the
proposed Project. The operational noise levels would be greater for the aggregate mining
component under this alternative than what was identified for the proposed Project. Impacts to
the operation of local roadways and intersections would be similar to the project,but impacts to
the regional,freeway system would be greater than those identified for the proposed project.
Visual resource impacts associated with the water conservation component tinder
Alternative 2 would be similar to the proposed Project as any relocation of the water
conservation basins would be within an area already impacted by existing water conservation
activities. The area for water conservation basins would be limited by this alternative more than
with the proposed Project and more than with any other alternative due to mining activities. If
the basins were abandoned, utility impacts may result from loss of the groundwater recharge
facilities. If the basins were replaced, impacts related to short-term construction-related air
quality would be greater due to the construction of water basins. Because impacts to the
biological resources and cultural resources are unknown,impacts associated with these resources
may be greater associated with the water conservation component for this alternative than the
proposed Project. Temporary noise impacts would be greater, as construction of water basins
would occur under this alternative. Operational noise impacts would be similar, as operational
activities associated with the water conservation component are similar to what was identified
for the proposed project. There would be trips associated with water basin construction activities,
which do not occur in the proposed project,therefore, construction traffic impacts would be
greater than what was identified for the proposed project.However,operational traffic generated
by water conservation activities would be similar to the proposed project as water conservation
activities would consist of operation/maintenance actions,
The District finds the Mining of Existing Lease Areas to be infeasible because it fails to
meet a number of the defined economic, social, etc. project objectives, including:
• Set aside and maintain habitat for sensitive, threatened,or endangered species in the
Planning Area, and prevent colonization by non-native plants and animals, as
mitigation for impacts from other aspects of the project,such as mining,designation
of areas for future roadways or water spreading facilities;
• Accommodate the relocation and expansion of aggregate mining quarries to help
ensure the long-term availability of high quality aggregate reserves located within the
Planning Area for local and regional use,consistent with the MRZ-2 designation or
reserves in this area,and do so on land adjacent to existing quarries, that have mostly
been disturbed;
This alternative also fails to achieve a mutually beneficial balance of heretofore
irreconcilable land uses, therefore harming the environment and hurting the economic benefits of
the aggregate mining operations.
-82-
8.6.3 Limited Mining in Expanded Quarries alternative Findings
The limited Mining in Expanded Quarries Alternative offers potentially less impact to
aesthetics in the Grange Street/Boulder Avenue corridor,but results in significantly more
impacts to biological resources, However, annual production levels reduce short-term impacts to
traffic, air quality, and utilities,but the expansion of the amount of mining reserves means
additional cumulative effects from each of these areas,from the extended life of mining
activities.The loss of the 5th Street access and private haul road means traffic benefits afforded
by the project to local streets would be lost. Loss of miningaggregate reserves is less for this
alternative than the proposed Project_The additional distance required for trucks to haul mined
material to processing plants likely outweighs any air quality benefits from reduced near-teirn
traffic because of lower production levels,resulting in additional air quality impacts.
The District finds the Mining of Existing Lease Areas to be infeasible because it fails to
meet a number of the defined economic,social,etc project objectives,including
• Set aside and maintain habitat for sensitive,threatened,or endangered species in the
Planning Area, and prevent colonization by non-native plants and animals,as
mitigation for impacts from,other aspects of the project,such as mining,designation
of areas for future roadways or water spreading facilities,
This alternative also fails to achieve a.mutually beneficial balance of heretofore
irreconcilable land uses,therefore harming the environment and hurting the economic benefits of
the aggregate mining operations.
8,5.4 Reduced Mining Footprint Alternative'
The primary benefit of this alternative is a decrease in biological disturbance and the
availability of 89 additional acres of potential mitigation land for future projects.Its primary
detriment is loss of aggregate reserves.It would decrease aesthetic impacts. In most other
respects,it is similar to the Project.rrhis alternative would create a decreased cumulative impact
on air quality emissions and traffic. In other respects,it is similar to the project except for
improvements to biological impacts
The District finds the Mining of Existing Lease Areas to be infeasible because it fails to
meet a number of the defined economic,social,etc. project objectives,including:
• Set aside and:maintain habitat for sensitive, threatened, or endangered species in the
Planning Area, and prevent colonization by non-native plants amid animals, as
mitigation for impacts from.Bather aspects of the project, such as mining, designation
of areas for future roadways or water spreading facilities;
• Accommodate the relocation and expansion of aggregate raining quarries to help
ensure the long-term availability of high quality aggregate reserves located within the
Planning area for local and regional use,consistent with the MRZ-2 designation or
reserves in this area, and do so on land adjacent to existing quarries, that have mostly
leen disturbed;
I
pis ncr
-83-
The District finds this alternative is infeasible for a number of reasons. First and foremost
among these is consideration of the long deliberative process that the Wash Plan participants
came to in balancing the environmental and economic aspects of the project. The additional 89
acres, and 26 million tons of aggregate reserves,have;significant long-term value not only to the
mining operators,but also the local economy. Making these additional reserves available is
consistent with the area's MRZ designation,:and in limine with projections for regional aggregate
demand,which far exceed local supplies.This economic value was considered by all Wash Platt
participants in coming to the compromises leading to the definition sof the mining area of the
proposed project,further,the ability of the District to secure mining royalty revenues from this
incremental additional reserve will allow it to sustain its water conservation operations, and may
provide an important income source to meet the requirements of the management of the habitat
set aside under the habitat enhancement program, and the eventual HCP approval:from the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service-
Second, the incremental benefits of Alternative 4 are essentially ones of degree only, and.
not of hind. Under this alternative, significant biological impacts will still occur, and time
potentially preserved.Santa Ana woollystar populations have already been;considered in the
habitat set-aside acreages that led to the compromise allocations of mining,habitat, and water
conservation areas under the Wash Plan Concept Plan that led to the present Upper Santa Ana
`ash Land Management and Habitat Conservation Plan,
SECTION 9 RECIRCULATION OF EIR NOT REQUIRED
The District hereby finds that mane of the CE+ A.Guidelines section.. 15088,5 conditions:
exist that would require recirculation of the EIR.. Refinements to the Project and its mitigation
measures would reduce rather than increase the environmental impacts identified in the:Draft
EIR. 'These refinements do not create neve significant impacts or increase significant impacts
that are not being mitigated. No feasible mitigation measures or alternatives that would clearly
lessen the Project's impacts have been identified that are not being incorporated into the Project
as mitigation,
SECTION 10: CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons,the District concludes that the proposed_Project will result in
five areas of unavoidable significant impacts (aesthetics, air quality,biological resources;
mineral resources,and traffic and transportation), and:the remaining significant adverse impacts
will be reduced to below a level of significance after implementation of.mitigation measures.
These Findings reflect the independent judgment of the.District, through.its Board, and
the District deems then adequate:for malting decisions on the merits of the proposed Project, in
compliance with CEQA and all other applicable law, As discussed in the separately provided
Statement of Overriding Considerations,the District concludes that;the proposed Protect will
result in numerous public benefits beyond those required to mitigate the proposed Project*
impacts,each of which individually is sufficient to outweigh the unavoidable adverse impacts of
he proposed Project. Wherefore,the District adopts these Findings and approves the proposed
Project..,
ZMA)15042-M3
EXHIBIT
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE UPPER SANTA ANA
RIVER WASH LAND MANAGEMENT AND HABITAT CONSERVATION PECAN
PROJECT
1. CEQA REQUIREMENTS FOR A STATELMENTOF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS
C EQA Guidelines Section 15093 establishes the following requirements for a Statement
of Overriding Considerations (the ":Statement"):
(ra) f EQA requires the decision-making agenu to balance, us applicable, the
econnrtaic°, legal, social, technolc gical, or anther bent, -of of as pr-c�perseel pr-trject
against its unavoidable environmental risks avhern determining whether tar approve
the prrr)ec°t, If the specifics ectrnnnaic°, legal, social, technological, or other beriefits
of a proposed project outivei h the unavoidable adverse environmental effects,
the adverse environmental effec°ts rraaayr be cnnsr"tlerecl "acceptable.
(b) When. the lean] agency approves ra prttjee;t which will result in the occurrence of
:significant effects which etre irlentifled in the final EIR but are not avoided or
substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the .specific reasons tca
support its action based on the final EER andl r other inforrruathm in the record.
The statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by .substantial
evidence in the record.
(ay) if an agency rnaakes at statement of overriding considerations, the
statement shnaalal
e inc-luded in the record of`the project approval and should be mentioned in the
notice of determination. This statement does not .substitute for, and .shall be in
addition to, findings required purse ant to Section 15091.
Consistent with C"EQA and the C'EzQA Guidelines. the Board of Directors (the "Board")
of the Sana Bernardino 'Valley Water Conservation District (the "District„,) has ;adopted this
Statement after receiving, reviewing, and considering the Final EIR, as well as all ether
infornnnation in the record of proceedings for this matter, 'chis Statement documents the District's
determination that specific econorrnic, legal, social, technological; and tither benefits of the
proposed Luper Santa Anti River ` &,;h Land Management And Habitat Conservation Plan
Project (tine "Project") outweigh the Project's unavoidable adverse environmental effects.
II: STATEMENTOF OVERRI C.('YNSIElEyfRA1"C0N
In accordance with the requirements of CxEQ , including the C"EQA Guidelines, the
District, through its Board, fronds that the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, when inns lennnetnted, avoid 01- Substantially lessen
Some of the significant environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR. Nonetheless, certain
significant impacts of the Project are unavoidable, even after the incorporation of all feasible
anniti,aation uaeasttres. 'rhe District haps balanced the economic: legal, social, technological, and
other benefits of the Project, including considerations for the provision of employment
opportunities for highly trained workers, against the following unavoidable adverse impacts
associated with the Project: (1) Aesthetic, {2) Air Quality', (3) Biology, (4) Mineral Resources,
and (5) Transportation and Traffic. The District rinds that notwithstanding these significant
unavoidable impacts and the presence of environmentally superior alternatives that partially meet
some of the Project objectives, the are specific overriding economic, legal, social,
technological, and other reasons for approving the Project.
A. (Joavoidable lmpacts
The District declares that identified mitigation measures reduce all of the Project's
environmental impacts to an insignificant level, other than the following.
• Aesthetics
o The existing visual character of new mining sites,would be altered during
mining and processing, The expansion of the mining areas would remove
existing native plants and create large open pits. The increase in total area
mined by both Cemex and Robertson's would result in additional disturbed
lands,all resulting in significant and unavoidable aesthetic impacts.
• Air Quality
o Impacts from on-site mining operations associated with NON emissions and
sensitive receptors impacts from on-site mining operations associated with
PKO and PM2,5 would remain significant and unavoidable.
• Biological
o Relocation of the District's Observation Well No. 4 and the construction of
future water conservation facilities will result in significant and unavoidable
impacts to listed species and/or other special status species or modification of
their habitats. The proposed aggregate mining expansion will also result in
significant and unavoidable impacts to listed species and/or other special
status species or modification of their habitats.
a Relocation of the District's Observation Well No. 4 and construction offuture
water conservation will result in significant and unavoidable impacts to a
sensitive natural courmUnity (Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub). The
proposed aggregate mining expansion will also result in significant nand
unavoidable impacts to as sensitive natural community (Riversidean alluvial
fail sage scrub).
o Impacts to listedspecies f'Slender-Horned Spineflower, Santa Arta River
Woollystar, San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat, and Coastal California
Gina lcitcher} and the Los Angeles Pocket Mouse will remain significant and
unavoidable.
.......... ..............
Mineral Resources
o The entire Planning Area is within a region designated as IVIRZ-2, an area of
potential significant mineral deposits. The Project proposes to place some 753
acres in habitat conservation, which will prohibit any future mining
exploitation of those acres, Ile Project will also designate 745 acres for
future water conservation,which will also preclude mineral extractions.
Accordingly,there will be a loss of regional mineral resources, which given
the features and objectives of the project, cannot be mitigated. This effect is
recognized as cumulatively significant and unavoidable.
• Transportation and Traffic
o Freeway improvements would reduce significant impacts to a less than
significant level;however,improvements to the freeway segments are under
the authority of Caltrans. There is no mechanism for development project
proponents to pay fees or make fair-share contributions toward improving
mainline freeway lanes. Consequently, there are no feasible mitigation
measures for these impacts. Because there are no feasible mitigation
measures for these impacts,cumulative freeway segment LOS impacts remain
significant and unavoidable,
B. Project Benerits
The District has determined that the Project's unavoidable adverse environmental impacts
may be considered "acceptable" due to specific considerations which,outweigh the unavoidable,
adverse environmental impacts, The District identified each of the following public benefits in
making its determination. Each of these public benefits serves as an independent basis for
overriding all unavoidable adverse environmental impacts referenced above:
1. The Project achieves a proper balance of competing and heretofore irreconcilable
uses in the Planning Area, including by way of example and not limitation- (1)the extraction of
aggregate mining resources defined by the State as regionally significant for economic
sustainability; (2)the conservation of water resources for groundwater basin replenishment in
order to augment and protect public water supplies necessary to sustain surrounding populations-,
and (3)the protection and conservation of biological resources, including sensitive and listed
native wildlife and plant species and their habitat. But for the Project, future aggregate
extraction, water conservation, and biological preservation uses are likely to be permitted and/or
conducted with less inter-agency coordination,potentially resulting in greater environmental
impacts than those identified in the Project FEIR—particularly with regard to biological impact,5.
In contrast, the Project ensures a reasoned land use approach while such an approach is still
feasible, i.e. before Planning Area uses expand and eliminate(or increase the cost of) the most
appropriate land uses in various Project environs.
2. The Project ensures,that the most appropriate and be.5t-suited lands for each of the
competing and irreconcilable uses are dedicated to that use, To do so, the Project provides for a
land exchange between the District and the Bureau of Land Management to: (1) focus tinning
22871015042-0013
445,01 11/(*108 -3-
g. The Project represents several years of careful consideration and evaluation of the
appropriate balance between the competing and irreconcilable arses in the Planning Area, The
Project is based upon the recommendation of the TAC,formed consisting of staff personnel from
the Cities of Highland and Redlands, the County of San Bernardino, the San Bernardino Valley
Water Conservation District,the Field Manager from the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, the
Fast Valley Fater District, and others. It would be extremely difficult and time-consuming to
repeat the TAC planning process, and aggregate extraction, water conservation,and habitat
preservation efforts would suffer in the meantime(possibly irreparably in the case of habitat
preservation). Thus, the environmental benefits of the Project are enhanced by the timely
approval of the Project.
III. CONCLUSION
N
For the foregoing reasons, the District concludes that the economic,legal, social,,
technological, and other benefits of the proposed Project, as identified above,outweigh and
override the unavoidable adverse environmental effects of the Project, When weighed against
the Project's benefits, the unavoidable adverse environmental effects of the Project and the
decision not to adopt the environmentally superior project alternative are considered acceptable.
Therefore, the.District has adopted this Statement of Overriding Considerations.
228110 i 1042€ 13
EXHIBIT C
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
This Mitigation monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared for use in implementing mitigation
for the:
Upper Santa Ana River Wash Land Management and Habitat Conservation Plan
The program has been prepared in compliance with State law and the Environmental Impact Report(EIR)
(State Clearinghouse No. 2004051023)prepared for the project by the San Bernardino Valley Water
Conservation District.
The California Environmental Quality Act(C QA)requires adopflon of a reporting or monitoring program
for those measures placed on a project to mitigate or avoid adverse effects on the environment(Public
Resource Code Section 21081.6). The taw states that the reporting or monitoring program shall be
designed to ensure compliance during project implementation.
The monitoring program contains the following elements:
1) The mitigation measures are recorded with the action and procedure necessary to ensure compliance,
In some instances,one action may be used to verify implementation of several mitigation measures.
2) A procedure for compliance and verification has been outlined for each action necessary. This
procedure designates who will take action, what action will be taken and when,and to whom and
when compliance will be reported.
3) The program has been designed to be flexible.As monitoring progresses,changes to compliance
procedures may be necessary based upon recommendations by those responsible for the program.
As changes are made,new monitoring compliance procedures and records will be developed and
incorporated into the program.
Appendix L Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Responsible Sanctions for
Mitigation Measures I Implementing for Monitoring Timing of Method of Non.
Action Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification Compliance
Review and approval
I of Berm
Landscaping mans
AES-2 Within 6 months of the issuance of bistda6enerai 64-nonths after Rev i ew a nd approval 0
I! issua
mining permitrN trees at least 15 Manager "® mining ot Landscaping Plan
gallons in siZe and common to the permits
Planning Area plant community shall City of Redlands
be planted by the mining operator Planning Director Arid
along the western perimeter of West
Quany, where sufficient space js Oty of Highland; Prior to Gradi
availaF le, at spacing of 15 feet on Piaroning Direemir
center to allow unrestricted growth and
to be sufficient to shield the tivarry
from view of passing motorists on SR-
30. tree planting plans shall be
submitted to D. the City of
Highland,the dily of Redlands and/or
Caltrans for review and as mceslsaryZL
Responsible
Sanctions for
Mitigation Measures I Implementing for Monitoring Timing of Method of Non-
Action Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification Compliance
The trees shall be planted prior to tfrre
"pension of the quarry and shall be
watered by the mining operators until
established. The trees shall be
maintained for the fife of the quarry
and replaced as necessary by the
mining operator.
AES-3 Frees of a species common to the City of Redlands Prior to Gracing review and approval On-site Inspection Withhold Grading
Planning Area shall be planted by the Planning Director of Landscaping Plan Permit
mining operator along the eastern
boundary of Alabama Street Quarry,
where suint space is available,that
parallels Sly-ail. The spacing of the
trees;shall be IS! on center to allow
unrestricted growth and to be sufficient
to mask the quarry from view of
travelers on SR-30, Tree planting
plans shall be submitted to the City of
Redlands for review and approval:
AES-4 As mining activities are completed,the City of Redlands Prior to Review and approval On-site inspection Withhold
slopes of the quarries shall be Planning director reclamation as of Reclamation and Aoceptance of
recialimed and revegetated by the mining is Revegetalikin Plans Reclamation and
mining operators per the approved City of Highland completed Invoke
Reclamation Pians with plant species planning Director Reclamation
common to the Riversidean Alluvial Bond
Fan Sage; Scrub Community.
Reclamation and revegetetion plans
shall be submitted to the District and
the City of Highland and the City of
Redlands for review and approval.
AIR f The mining operators, Comex and City of Redlands Annually Ongoing during Submit evidence from.. Stop Work 1
Robertson's, shalt comply with Article Planning Director mining and cortiTred mechanic or Revoke CUP
4.3 In-Use Off-Road Diesel-Fuo)ed reclamation. testing faces+
Fleets, Section 2445 Emission City of Highland
Standards for In-Use Off-Road Diesel- Planning Director
Fueled Fleets(CARS„July 27, 2007)
and any other applicable,subsequent
Appendix L Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program L-3
4
F • • Sanctions i
Responsible
Non-
Mitigation Measures I Implementing for Monitoring Timing of Method of
Action c. .. Verification
Verification compliance
noes,regulations,and requirements to
the extent that is technologically
feasible.
AlR The emissions of diesel particulate are Mining
expected to result in carcinogenic City of Redlands site inspections ltilining operators shah Revoke CUP
health risks that exceed the AQMlD Planting Director incorporate the measure in
thresholds t nearby sensitive lfneirope ores:
receptors, Applicable mitigation City of Highland Evil a that the measure'
measurers may include the following: Planning Director has been incorporated in
the miming operating
•
Heavy-duty diesel equipment shall procedures shad be
have exhaust particulate traps as submitted to the that
certified andl*r verified by EPA or have Jurisdiction over the
California installied.it available.. mb*ig activities:
• Heavy-duty diesel equipment shall be
fated the most modern emission LWA
control devices and be kept in proper Construction
tune to rrrinitnixa construction vehicle Chir of Redlands s Pear to issuance of Prior to issuanceof o nstrixton company Withttold grading
grading per
emissions, where feasible. This City Engineer permit gradin it. shall Incorporate the pen rti 5
measure shall be monitored by the measure in their
nshu ion ger, Cfly of Highland construction docu
City Engineer
Ytfater
C+arw�on
lis Hance
flea:
District General
Manager Prior to issuance of Prior to issuance of Construction company Withhold
Pam-it to construct permitt to construct shall incorporate the construction
measure in their permits
consbuction documents.
T
City of Redlands Prior to issuance of Prior to issuance of Construclion company Wdftld grading
Planning I3uecOr grading permit grading permit; shallincorporale the perrrttts
City of t ligfriarnd measure in their
LYq, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Appendix L
Responsible Sanctions for
Mitigation Measures/Implementing for Monitoring Timings of Method of Non-
Action Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification Compliance
_.•# III ■
" The r# ! issuance of
.#+e-+,# schedule
'" : # i _ rr -+ Permits it + sm a.,r •Y... ,
transportation of r
I
Y day frorn
south MOU shall be fled with
# r ry r t`.. i both Cites prior to
Section 11,which is the area farthest
issuance of Mining
fror6 #'+ $inr r.
i� w # •#. Ili a
Permits.
• #iin o 1M: # . - y �sewre an Revoke� +
ental
ntal take incidental take pem*from Take Permit
based on USFWS,
ibi�irements of
Section
1a
Permit
Nor to issuance Owd shag prepare an TBD by HCP I
Section 1 Oa Perri-A HCP that includes a Section 10a
..:....,. i 1 ..
#: r
Habitat t r. Plan P46rnit
that inwrporates the# # r.... securer•#: F.:
# # ##
Responsible Sanctions for
Mitigation Measures t Implementing for Monitoring Tinning of Method of Non-
Action Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification compliance
proposiad quarries, as appropriate in
the operating plans' DistricL and
in accordance wth the Modificationso
the specific measures as ultimately
contained in the 68��d HCP�
810-3 The Habitat Enhancement Plan $halla .O by
:r' t H BVI P
maintain approximat*1,662 acres of Section 10a Permit Section 10a
RNarsidean alluvial tan sageY .Eia F-
pirmit
(including intermediate, tthat
mature and 00 ns witn non- mifigation measure and
secure
n incidental take
native qrassland)� in the Habitat
• E along A Il.• *Y 14.
Ana Riveri PlungeCrook, and Mill
Ctaoik # a minimum declineof
percent166 acres) from oxistiq
conditions or a minimumof 1,496
acres of Rive •"an alluvi fan sage
}at any♦'
..! by HCP .. ,} ...E rW • District .s E a.}. e an TED
..a '.
Section 10a Permit 1 HCP that includes a Section 10a
i Habitat Enhancement Plan
that incorporates the
mitigatiori measure and
secure an incidentat take
} permit
910-5 The Habitat Enhancement Plan shal TBO E �1r ��!! r Y EL D} I
maintain v ..
, .s Section i.PermitiY.. Ac r F ,, iis
Permit
ajluv'Wl fan sage scrubat minimum in a } 9
Planningsimilar portion to the existing baseline
an irmWen
of the three primary stages of alluvia Measure
fan sage scrub conservad within th perind from USOM.
Area with an allowed
percent decline4
interri4dwialmaturef
�,: • M ♦ # 'E. # �"EAI E ',Y.Y � {'.Y}'
Responsible
Sanctions
Mitigation Measures/Implementing for Monitoring Timing of Method of Non-
Action Montforino Frequency VerificationVerificationv •
alluviei fran sage scrub combined from
existing conditions to account for
natural successional processes.
Intermediate and intermadiatelmature
alluvial fan sage scrub currently
account for 1,372 acres(57%)of the
baseline total within the Habitat
Conservation and Water Conservation
areas.The minimum allowable amount
of intermediate and intermediate/
mature Riversidean alluvial favi sage
scrub would be 1.059 acres(52%)-
810-6 The Habitat e=nhancement Plan shall district General TBD by HCP! Prior to issuance of District shall prepare an TBO by HCP l
maintain approximately 121 acres of Manager Section 10a Permit Section 10a hermit HCP that includes a Section 10a
chamise chaparral(including chemise Habitat Enhancement PlanPermit
chaparral within combinations of that incorporates the
chemise chaparral/ non-native mtdpWn measure and
grassland vegetation>'ty ) in the secure an incidental take
Habitat Conservation area along the permit from USF a.
l Santa Arca River, Plunge Creek, and
Mill Creek,with a minimum decline of
10 percent (12 ages) from existing
conditions or a minimum of 109 acres
of chemise chaparral (including
charn se chaparral combinations
of chemise chaparral/non-native
grassland vegetation types).
BI0-7 The Habitat Enhancement Plan shall District General TBO by HCP I prior to issuance of district shell prepare an TBD by HCP f
maintain approximately 50 acres of Manager Suction 10a hermit Section 10a Permit HCR that includes a Section 14a
chamise chaparral(including chemise Habitat Enhancement Plan Permit
chaparral within combinations of that incorporates die
charniae chaparral/ non-native mitigation measure and
>
grassland vegetation types) in the secure an Incidental take
Planning Area along the Santa Ana permit from USFWS♦
River, with a minimum decline of 10
percent (5 acres) from existing
conditions or a minimum of 46 acres of
chemise chaparral(including chemise
chaparral within combinations of
Appendix L Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program L-7
Responsible Sanctions for
Mitigation Measures f Implementing for Monitoring Timing of Method of Non
Action Monitoring .
chemise chaparral/ non-nativer
grassland vegetation types),
810-8 The Habitat Enhancement Plan shall District General TBD by HCP t Prior to Issuance of District shag prepare an TBD by HCP I
maintain at least fro wetted acres of Manager Section ltta Permit Section 10a Permit HCP that includes a Section 10a
recharge basins within the; Planning" Habitat Enhancement Plan Permit`
Area. that incorporates the
mitigation measure and
secure an incidental take
permit from USFWS.
BI£t_g The Habitat Enhancement Plan shall. District General TSDby HCP 1 Prior to issuance of District shalt prepare an TBC)by HCP
under the direction of the District, Marker Section I Oa Permit Section 1 Oa Permit HCP that includes a Section 10a
Include a survey conducted in the Habitat Enhancement Plan Permit
summer of each year to determine the that Incorporates the
extent and type of non-native mitigation measure and
vegetation present kr the Habitat secure an incidental take
Conservation; Water Conservation, permit from USFWS.
and Flood Control areas in the
Planning Area, Non-native, speclas
currently present in the Planning Area
include tree tuba= (Nicodana
gleam), tocalote, (Centaur '
mrreMonsk), Russian thistle (Salsola
tragus), Spanish broom ( parOurn
junc eum), and caster-bean (Ridnus
communis)(Ulburn 1997)=During the
surveys, the approximate area
container ties nor-native skies and
their density will be estimated. The
frequency of these surveys shalt be
reduced to every other year if no
patches of non-native species are
found for four consecutive years.
Surveys for as -native aquatic species
{e.g„
bullfrogs.crayfish,mosquitofish,
and snapping turtles) known to be
detrimental to western spadefoot shall
be conducted annually in the spring or
summer:
13I0-1 t1 The Habitat Enhancement Flan shall, L}istrlct General TSD by HCP 1 Prior to issuance of District shall prepare an T8D by HCP}
l_- Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Appendix L
i
i
i
i. Sanctions •
`" •• • .
Mitigation Measures I Implementing for Monitoring Timing of Method of
Action Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification Compliance
under the direction of the District, Manager Section lOa Permt SectionlOaParmit ICP thatwas a S=lila
include the removal of non-native, Habitat Enhancement Pian Permit
Invasive plant species Enured during the that incorporates the
annual surveys using methods that will mitigation measure and
not harm individual members of the secure an incidental take
Santa Ana River woollystar, coastal permit from USF S.
CaMornia gnatcatcher,San Bemardino
kangaroo rat,and Los Angeles pocket
mouse or their habitat, or cause
pollutants to enter the Sante Ana
River, Mill Creek, City Creek, or
Plunge Creek. Eradication shall be
accomplished using hand triols or
pulling individual plants by Mand.For
many annual;species, this v ll likely
involve cutting the plants(one or more
times)before they set seed.
SIO-11 The Habitat Enhancement Plan shall, District General TBO by HGP 1 Prior to Issuance of District shall prepare an TBD by MCP J
under the direction of the District. Manager Section 10a Permit Section'"1Ba Pe HCP that includes a Section 10a
include removal of non-native-aquatic Habitat Enhancement Plan Permit
species (e.g.., bullfrogs and crayfish) that incorporates the
found during the surveys utilizing mitigation measure and
methods currently approved:by the secure an incidental take
USFWS that minimize the potential for permit from USF4^JS;
impacts to the weslem spadefoot.
Potential rnathods include traps,seine,
dip nal,hand;and speadgig.removal
shall be by biologists who can
distinguish the nonnative species
(including egg and tadpole stages)
from the native s to be
protect, Eradication shall not be
conducted when western spadefoot
eggs are present,
BIO-12 The Habitat Enhancement Pian shalt, l TBD lair HCI t Prior to Issuance of District shall prepare an TBb by f
under the direction of the Diatric4 Marwiff SectionjoaPennit ' Section lfla Derma HGP that Includes a Section 10a
include a program to control Argentine Habitat Entrancement PlanPena
ants within the Habitat Conservation, that incorporates the
Water Conservation,and Mood Control itigaliorr measure and
j
Appendix L Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program L"g
Responsible Sanctions for
Mitigation Measures I a
Action Monitoring Frequency Verification .
areas and within 300 feet of these secure ars Msfsnital take
areas within the Planning Area. The permit frUSFWS.
Argentine ants shall be controlled
through elimination of water sources
where feasible and treatment of nests.
Que ins and larvae,in the neat will be
controlled primarily through the use of
granular toxic bait(e.g., Talstar). The
integrated Rest management program
shall include anneal inspection to
determine presence of colonies,
treatment of identified colonies, and
site re-minspection after one month to
determine efficacy of the treatment,
Species pest control recommendations
shalt be made by a State-licensed'
Category A Past Control Advisor.The
specified arias shell be monitored
annually in tate summer or fall. The
frequency of 0.4se surveys shall be
reduced to every rather year if no
Argentine amts are found for four
consecutive years. A report detailing
the program shall be prepared
annually.
810-13 The Habitat Enhancement Plan shall, DistrictGeneral TBD by HCP f Prior to issuance of District shag prepare an TBC7 kfCR l
ander the direction of the District; Manager Section 10a Permit Section 10a Permit HCP that includes a Section 10a
employ fencing (three-strand wire habitat Enhancement Plan Permit
fencing)around entry points and post that#ncxarporates the
signage to control unauthorized trait mitigationmeasu
re and
use;by Taff-road vehicles and garbage
secure an incidental twice
and trash slumping, from t1SFWS.
Bit d-14 The Habitat nh ancement Plan shall, District General TBD fay HCP t Prior to issuance of Cl`aatr%t shad prepare an TSI by HCP 1
under then direction of the SBCFCD Man Section 10a Pern-A S 10a HCP that includes a S iiia
and the District,restrict vehicular traffic habitat pnhancerment Pian Permit
associated with routine operation and that incorporates the
maintenance activities within the sretaga#itan measure and
Habitat Conservation area to daylight secure an Inclidental take
hours to avoid roadkill of San I permit from USFWS.
L-10 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Appendix L
Responsible Sanctions for
Mitigation Measures I Implementing for Monitoring Timing of Method,of Non-
Action tion Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification Compliance
♦-
abitat Enhancement '; u
� :
under the direction of the Oistrid
ensure that Best Management .R w"
maintenance operations
recharge basins to
1 '
IIIA iI I i _
nvoid impacts tot,
f�l 'I
810-16 The Habitat Enhancement Plan sW a m Annual R�6portto U�SFM
Under the direction of the D
ensure that traits, , it' Ra Y4
I
buffers on •: of the trails orr
roads where these buffers
the Planning Area,shail be moriitore�..
on quarterly basis forthe presence
trash,which couldbe washed into
Santa
River,Mill Creak�or Plunge
Crook Ana
ns +w _ r.
shelf be removed
:da r s during th
quarterly
BK)-17 The mine operators shot! Implement 1 City of Redlands
reclamation and revagetatto Planning Dlireclor
concurTent with ongoing m6ing per th*
Mine and Reclamation Plans approved—I
by the Clues of Highland and City Of Highland
Planning Director
810-18 Cernex
I� shallbe prohibited from minring iM Ki t _ .. ,. x v.. Submittal of s. a
the am encompassed by the Slender- that slander-homed
horned Spineflower Enhancement and spineflower from the
Plelodation Plan (SLERP) unfit such $LERP area has been
time that the SLEW has effectively
.. :.!,: effectiveliy transplanted,
transplanted Y ar relocated R - members
(or a sufficient numberdetermineda
by USFWSl of the slandoir-homed
spineflower from or
the USFWS determines the SLERP
Responsible Sanctions for
Mitigation Measures t Implementing for Monitoring Timing of Method of Non-
Action Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification Compliance
.I # , ..{ UI■� �T « .« ® t■ « .« i « ------
Pdor tograding row Submittalof evidence
a ■,w «INS ,wl
•.4 :- s..r. :. # " « •.w: « .ate; facilities that a.-a«been conducted,
■:.
delineation survey$have
U
r t
-a [ ■,- s w w iY ■ #. • ;- .. " « ■ «^ s ■ ■ +.-.:� .►: ■ '".■«:. r..e- submit ■ ■ w :w> i..
a' Y
requirementsAccess Road and mining within the grading permits grading perrnits evidence to the City of permit inWate
violation of
Plun Creek Quarry, jurisdictional Highland that the
delineation surveys shall be preparw 0-ianning Directo
Robertson's. The jurisdictional
evs have been procedures
sury
Ineation surveys shall comply with pleted.
com
California Fish and i3ame Code w0bg ik�
Sections 1600-1616 and Section 404 Plunge Creek
■ Qua
dischargeCorps of Engineers for any 'in the Robertson's shall ttibrnit Revol�a CUP
■ dredged « fig ! « * «.. « w .w p,.:.. w .:4C .. kQuarry evidence toCity y
jurisdictional waters of the U.SA Highland that the
Quarry
Secition 401 Certification from the Jurisdictional delineation
surveys have been
Regional Water Quality Control Board
could also be required,
-- #
-21
Y PriorA constructionof : Greenspot L: i..�#,yp . •..v. w" SII Y A « I}I} �.■ Y ■ ■ -
Road, Alabama Street, and Orange Frior to issuance of
i im• e f
Street-BoUlder
,..;.. '."«:w s -..w :c' permits ■ :.■ #. «: 'a... «_, ^_a-■-. r : .m:4 ! «c
II grading s
improvement
Responsible Sanctions for
Mitigation Measures I Implementing for Monitoring Timing of Me thod of Non-
Action Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification Compliance
by the CRY of Highland andtor
Redlands, The jurisdictional 6kbama It
delineation surreys shelf comply with City of Highland Prier to issuance of Prior to issuance of Submittal of a jurisdicticsrial INIthholdgrading
California Fish and Game Coyle City Engineer grading permits grading permits delineation survey to the permit
Sections 1800-1616 and Section 404 City for review and
requirements from the U.S. ,Army City of Redlands g .
Corps of Engineers for any discharge City Engineer
of dredged or fill material in
jurisdictional waters of the U.S. A
Section 401 Certification from the QM
Regional Water quality Control Board DwAftrAm
could also be required, City of Highland Prior to Issuance Of Prior to issuance Of Submittal of a Jurisdictional Withhold grading
City Engineer grading permits grading permits delineation survey to the permit,
City for review and
Cath of Redlands approval.
City Engineer
810-22 As part of the construction of relocated D sfid general Prior to grading for Prior to gracing for Submittal of Evidence Withhold Grading
Observation Well No. 4 and Manager Well 4.; Well 4: that pre-grading surveys permit
construction of future water were conducted,
conservation facilities,tri and other
significant vegetation thatmay provide District Ce eml Prior to grading fair Prior to grading for Submittat of Evidence Withhold Grading
nesting habitat for migratory bird shall Wnager future water future water that pre-grading surveys Permit
be removed from the construction conservation conservation facilities. ware conducted.
areas by the District between r'awal :
September 1 and March 1,outside of
the nesting season. It tines or other
significant vegetation must be removed
during the nesting season, a nesting
gird survey shall be conducted by a
qualified biologist no more than 14
days prig`to any grading or vegetation
clearing.. if nesting birds ars found
within the areas to be impacted by the
project,the nest and a 100-foot beer
area( 00 feet for reptors)around the
nest shall'be protected and maintained
until the biologist determines that
young have fled and/or the nests
are nes longer active, The buffer area
Appendix L Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program L-13
Responsible
SanctionsI Mitigation Measures I Implementing for Monitoring Timing of Method of
Non-
Action Monitoring Frequency
- -
shall be delineated with orange
construction fencing.;
B10-23 Prior to construction of relocated District General Prior to grading for Friar to grading for Submittal of Evidence Withhold GradkV
Observation Well No. 4 and Manager Well 4. Well 4. that pre-grading surveys Permit
construction of future, crater were conducted.
conservation facilities,the District shall
conduct a habitat assessment for
burrowing owl,if habitat is observed,a District General Prior to Grading for Prior to Grading for Submittal of Evidence Withhold Grading
focused burrowing owt survey shall be Manager future water future water that pre-grading surveys Permit;
conducted during breeding season conservation conservation facilities. were conducted.
(March 1 -m August 31) per approved facilities:
survey protocol. If occupied burrows
are found, appropriate mitigation
measures shall be implemented which
may include one or more of the
following in consuttation with CDFG:
• Avoid disturbance within 160 feet of
occupied burrows during non-
breeding season and within 250
feat during breeding season;and/or
• If owls must be moved, passive
relocatim during the non-breeding
season per CDFG
recommendations shall be
implemented.
• A burrowing owt pre-construction
survey shall be conductedby a
qualified biologist no more than 14
days prior to any grading or
vegetation clearing In areas with
potential borrowing owt habitat not
previously mitigated.if nesting owls
or occupied burrows are` found
within the areas to be impacted,the
above mitigation measure shall be
0
implemented„
iiiBto- As part of their mining expaHalon;trees City of Redlands Marc 1—Sept 1 Prior to vegetaborl Submittal of Evidence Stop Work/
and other significant vegng.Director removal in mining tttiai pce-grading surveys Revoke CU
L-14 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Programa Appendix t
Responsible
Non-
Action «n Verification Compliance
may provide nesting habitat for a were conducted,if
migratory birds shall be removed by City of Highland required.
CEMEX and Robertson's from the F anriing Director
mining areas between September 1
and March '1; outside of the nesting
season. If trees or other significant
vegetation must be removed during the
nesting season,a nesting bird survey
shell be conducted by a qualified
biologist no more than 14 days prior to
any grading or vegetation clearing. if
nesting birds are found within the
areas to be impacted by the prolesct,
the nest and a 100-foot buffer area
(200 feet for raptors)around the nest
shalt be protected and maintained unU
the biologist determines that young
have fledged and/or the nests are no
longer active,The buffer area shall be
delineated With grange construction
fencing;.
810-25 Pricer to alining Thin all mining City of Redlands Prior to miming in Prig to miring in any Submittal of Evidence Stop Work f
expansion areas, CEMEX and Planning Director any mining mining expansion that pre-grading surveys Revoke CUP
Robertson's shall conduct a habitat expansion area. area. were conducted,if
assessment for burrowing, owl. if City of Highland required.
habitat is observed, a focused Planning Director
burrowing owl survey shall be
conducted during breeding season
(March 1 --August 1)per approved
survey protocol. If occupied burrows
are found; appropriate mitigation
measures shall be implemented which
may include one or more of the "
following}in consultation with CDFG
Avoid disturbance within 160 feet of
occupied burrows during non-breeding
season and within 250 feet during
breeding season;and/or'
Appendix L Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program G=i
Responsible Sanctions for
gation Measures Implementing for Monitoring Timing of Method of Non-
Action Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification Compliance,
It owls must be moved. passive
relocation during the non-breading
season per CDF G recommendations
shall be implemented.
A burrowing awl pre-construction
survey shall be conducted by a
qualffied biologist no more than 14
days prior-to any grading or vegetation
clearing in areas with potential
borrowing owl habitat not previously
mitigated. If nesting owis or occupied
burrows are found within the areas to
be impacted, the above mitigation
measure shall be Implemented,
810-26 As part of the Greenspot Road, QrQj91tit&d
Alabama Street and Orange Street- City of Highland Prior to vegetation Prior to vegetation Submittal of Evidence With Grading
Boulder Avenue roadway City Engineer removal. removal. that pre-gradIng surveys Permits.
improvements, trees and other were conducted,if
significant vegetation that may provide required.
nesting habitat for migratory birds shall
be removed by Highland and Redlands &§Ma§L
from the construction areas between City of Highland Prior to vegetation Prior to vegetation Submittal of Evidence Withhold Grading
September I and March 1,outside of City Engineer removal, removal. that pre-grading surveys Permits.
the nesting season. It trees or other were conducted,it
3ignWicarit vegetation must be removed city of Redlands required.
during the nesting season, a nesting City Engineer
bird survey shall be conducted by a
qualified biologist no more than 14
days prior to any grading or vegetation 2Mg9s St—
clearing. If nesting birds are found Bouldot Ave.
within the areas to be impacted by the City of Highland Prior to vegetation Prior to vegetation Submittal of Evidence Withhold Grading
project the nest and a 100400t buffier Cily,Engineer removal. removal. that pr"rading surveys permits.
area(200 feet for raptors)around ft were conducted,if
nest shall be protected and maintained City of Redlands required.
until the biologist determines that City Ejoneer
young have fledged and/or the nests
are no longer active.The buffer area
stoll be delineated With orange
construction fencing.
L-16 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Appendix L
Responsible
Mitigation Measures/Implementing for Monitoring
Action Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification Compliance
010-27 As part of the Grearivot Road, Grooms at M.
Alabama Street, and Orange Street- City of H`rgfiand Prior to vegetation Prior to vegetation Submittal of Evidence Withhold Grading
Boulder Avenue roadway City Engineer removal. removal. that pre-grading surveys Permits.
improvements,H44and and Redlands were conducted,if
shall conduct a habitat assessment for required.
burrowing ow4.If habitat is observed,a
focused burrowing owwt survey shall be Alabama Ste
conducted during breeding season City of Highland Prior to vegetation Prior to vegetation Submittal of Evidence Withhold Grading
(March I -August 31)per approved City Engineer removat removal. that pre-grading surveys Permh&
survey protocol. if occupied burrows were conducted,If
are found, appropriate mitigation City of Redlands required.
measures shall be implemented which City Engineeir
may include one or more of the
foilovAng in consultation with CDFG
Avoid disturbance within 160 feet of 9 fit'
occupied burrows duringnon- fouldar Ave.
Pity of Highland Prior for vegetation Prior to vegetation Submittal of Evidence Withhold Grading
breeding season and within 2511 CityEngineer removal. removal. that pre-grading surveys Permits.
fest during breeding n;and/or were conducted,if
E It owls must be moved, passive 01Y Of Redlands requlred,
relocation during the non-breetting CitY Engineer
season per CDFG
recommendations shall be
implemented.
CUL-1 A qualified hie+logical monitor shallInirr
be present during initial ground- City of Redlands wring initial During initial mining, On-site inspections Stapp work
disturbing activities in the proposed Planning Dkoctor mining,ground- -disturbing
Planning Area. The monitor shall be disturbing activities.
empowered to temporarily haft or City of Highland activities.
redirect construction/mining activities Planning Direr
in the vic"ty of the find until the find
can be evaluated by a certified
archaeologist_ 82ad
iso tru90
City of Redlands During grading Onsite inspections Stip work
City Engineer Dung grading
City of Highland
City Engineer
Appendix L Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program L-'17
Responsible Sanctions for
Mitigation Measures « Method
Monitoringrt
Water
conservatlon
m4latenance
AgLAMM
District General
Manager During ground- Cis-site inspections Stop vork
During ground- disturbing acWtles.
disturbing
Trails activities.
City of Redlands
Planning Director During ground On-site irispections Strap work
disturbing activities.
City of Highland During ground
Planning Director disturbing
activities-
CUL-2activities-
CUL-2 In the event of a new find, salvage, Wing
excavatIon and reporting shall be City of Redlands During initial During initial mining, On-site Inspections Stop work
required. The Secretary of the Planning Director mining,ground ground-disturbing
Interiors Guidelines for archaeological disturbing activities.
docurnentation small be foll wed by a City of Highland
qualified archoobgist: Planning Director
�i
Censtructlon
City of Redlands Duriing grading Ort-sits Inspections Stop work
City Engineer During grading
City of Highland
City Engineer
W r
Conseirmson
i tem
L-l$ Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Appendix L
Responsible Sanctions for
Mitigation Measures I Implementing for Monitoring Timing of . Non-
Action Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification Compliance
aobdm
D*Wd General During ground- On-site ""lions Step work
Manager During ground- disturbing activities.
disturbing
activities.
imb
City of Redlands
Planning Director During ground- Can-site inspections Stop work
disturbing activities.
City of Highiand During ground-
Naming Direr disturbing
activities.
CUL-3 if the archaeological sites CA-SBR City of Redlands Annual During ground Annual Mina inspections Stop Worts
6076H,CA-SBR-6076H.ar car CA: Planning Director disturbing activides or Notice to Cities by Mine
SSR-6087H cannot be avoided operators
during implementation of the City of Highland
proposed Project, further study as Planning Director
detailed below shell be necessary
for mitigation.
0 Subsurface Testing:This would
consist of a limited subsurface
data collection program to help`
determine the depth and
distribution of the resource.
Archival Research,- Archival
research could yield specific
data regarding the origin and
age of found resourcesiadifacts
and ply them in a historical
context.
• gate Recovery: If the
resourcelartftcts are
determined eligible for the
California Register of Historic
Resources, additional'
archaeological data recovery
excavations would be
Appendix L Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program L_1
hand and/or block architectural
-
Responsible
Mitigation Measures I Implementing
VerificationAction Monitoring Frequency Verification -
remediated,
Trails
City of Redlands
Planning Director Ongoing [ging consiruclion Contractor shall provide stop Work
aclivitk-is written Woof DTS was
City of Highland notified and the sktaiiion is
Planning Director mmad°ated.
HAZ-2 The Department of Conservation; District General Ongoing During mining Mining operaW shall Stop Work
Division of Cil, Gas, & Geothermal Manager acdvbas provide the District and
Resources shall be immediately Cities written proof the
notified in the event that a previously City of Redlands Departrnent of
unrecorded well is discovered during Planning Director Conservation,Division of
the course sof activities associated with til,Gas,&Geothen-n ai
the proposed prod. Earthmoving City of Highland Resources has been
activities In the vicinity of said material Planning Director` notified and the situation
shall be halted until the wdent and has been ramediated.
nature of the suspect material is
detannined by qualified personnel(as
determined by the Department of
Conservation, Division of tail, Gas,&
Geothermal Resources) and any
necessary remedial action is
completed, The removal and/or
disposal of any such contaminants
shall be in accordance with all
applicable local, Mats., and Federal
standards,
HA -3 Prior to the issuance of any permit Minim
required for project-related ground- City of Redlands prior to Issuance of Prior to issuance of Mining operator shag have Withhold Mining
disturbing activities a site-specific Planning Director mining pesritit mining permit a blase l prepared and Permit
Phase 1 Environmental Site submitted to the Cities for
Assessment in accordance with.DTSC City of Highland review and approval.
standards shall to completed and Planning Director
submitted to the appropriate
tunsdiction for review.In the event that
hazardous materials are discovered, BOA
the project applicant shall provide Corys#ructlan
evidence to the appropriate agency City of Redlands farmer to issuance of Priortetction Contractor shag have a Withhold Grading
(agencles) that remediation and/or Planning Director grading permits a . iii 1 prepared artd Permits
Appendix L Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program L-21
lResponsible Sanctions for
Mitigation Measures implementing forMonitoringmNon-
Action
Compliance
Mitigation of SW slte has beensubmitted to the CItles ftx
l pleted to the satisfaction of the City of Highland review and
approPraate local, regional, ,tats, Planning Director
and/or Federal entity, prior to any
grow urbing activities within 100
of any hazardous material site
identified during a profi t-specific csnsaDolig
Phase i:- tialnnance
s
District General Prior to Gnarling Prior to construction C;orftactor shall have a DT$
Manager Phase I prepared and enforcement
subrnitted'to the District for procedum
review and approval.
City of Redlands Prior to Grading Prior to construclion Contac Ior shat have a' Withhold Grading
Planning Director activities Phase I prepared and Permits
Submitted to the Cies to(
City of Highland r vowand approval,
'tanning Dkedor
HAZ4 In the event of any identification of or District General ongoing Ongoft Notice to Cities, Stop groundwater
Spill of hazardous materials andfor Managerrecharge activilies
contaminants in the Planning Area,the
Party whose activity resulted In the spill
or release shall notify the District of the
location,extent,and mature of the spill
or release.The District shall thereupon
OSSOU the depth to groundwater in the
area of the release, and if it appears
haat groundwater tables are high
enough to ate a potential for
exposure of the groundwater tabu to
the spill or release, will modify it#
nacharge operations as much as
feasible to prevent groundwater table
intersection with the Identified spill or
release.
HAZ-5 Ali loads In open street legal trucks City of Redlands Ongoing OngoinIl at finite of On-site inspection Revoke CLIP???
shall be no higher than 6.0 inches Planning DirecIor Incident
below ft top of the truck wall or
L-22 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Appendix L
Responsible Sanctions for
Mitigation Measures/Implementing for Monitoring Timing of Method- f Non-
Action Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification mpliance
red and "I be subf6d'"oe
..Y:w + w: s a • r fe swY.:
DY elop Directors of the cities of
H ]a Redlands,
.Storm Water Pollution aa.>. "I of Redlands# lll �: Y i -: 'I� i-..i .s: + lal Yan
n Planning Director I prepare and . i#...
excavationProgram(SWPPP)shall be developed review and approval a
or revised by mining proponents for City of Highland SWPPP to ft Ofies that
hive jurisdiction overthe
routine mining activities associated Planning Director
With new = permit,mining
SWPPP shall emphasize 4 1
HYD-02 w Iit .ground w s. r: rI�w�ly� T •II' 1°eY _ . _. Mining w
operators �.. `��Ili���,+/U�•
split Prevention control and Planning Director prepare and submit for
countermeasures Y .approval
be developed or revised by mining CAy of Highland SPCCP to the Citle's that
proponents for new mining area Planning Director have Jurisdiction
over the
activities and shah outline the methods mining permit.
and locations that would be :.i for
disPosalof debris handled or produced
on site during excavation, the plan
shall wincludehandling andclean
up procedures for any accidental
releases 1'rit the excavation
Disposal of maintenance/excavation
WBSte is SU*lCt to compliance
applicable waste disposal regulations i
+ requirements,
:."'.•.!". R M' Y miring
i ls
i+: 4 4 • + ..wF I� .q
I respective quarry, _
District shallI�I{[ Y
gnYindwater I"data activities if in
review nionthly groundwater laval data violation of
from nearby wells and observe pit ftow
mitigation
conditions to deteffnine the depth of measure.
0*existing groundwater level. if it is
determined that groundwater it
present at least 20 feet or less korn
bottom of the eb quarry, rs
Responsible Sanctions for
Mitigation Measures I Implementing for :Monitoring Timing of Method of Non-
C
Action Moriltorino ornp
Frequency Verification Verification liance
the pr
REC-01 Prior to implementation of a trail City of Redlands Prior to grading for Prior to grading of any Review and approval of a Withhold grading
program,a Trails Master Plan shall be Plainning Director any trail. trail Trails Master Plan that
permit
developed and implemented for the incorporates the mitigation
Planning Area by the City of Highland City of Highland measure by the Cities:
and City of Redlands, which shall Planning Director
Identify the following components:
Quantity, style, and location of
signs and barricades associated
with each trail. (This may include
the requirement to place signs in
areas previously disturbed versus
undisturbed area, the use of
educational signs informing people
to *carry in/carry out' trash, and
signs depicting fines for littering,};
# Maintenance schedule for
replacementirepair of signs,
barricades,and trail improvements,
* Maintenance schedule for collection
of trash(e.g.,weekly,monthly).
+ Maintenance schedule for removal
of Invasive species for each trail,
♦ identification of agency responsible
for the upkeep and maintenance of
these trails,
REC-02 Prior to implementation of a trail City of Redlands Prior to Nor to approval of a Review and approval of a Withhold approval
program,an outreach program shall be Planning Director Implementation of Trails Plan.
Trails Plan by the Ues of a Trails Plan.
developed by the City of Highland and a Trails Plan, and County-
City of Redlands for the Planning Area, City of Highland
which shall Incorporate and use Planning Uirector
education and outreach tools,
developed and contained in the County of San
California Water Boards Erase the Bernardino
Waste Campaign. The education Regional Parks
outreach program shall focus on lifter t
—-----------------
L-24 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporfing Program Appendix L
ResponsibleSanctions for
Mitigation Measures/Implementing for Monitoring Timing of Method of
Non-
Act' Monitoring Frequency
ion
Verification Verification Compliance
and pet waste and include (but shall
not be limited to) the following
elements: Advertising, Community
Outreach, Strategic Partnerships,
Media,Youth Education,and Business
and Stakeholder Outreach.
REC-03 Prior to implementation of a trail City of Redlands Prior to 11 Poor to approval of a Review and approval of a W approval
program,the City of Highland.City of Planning Director implementation of Trails Plan. Tri Plan by the Cities of a Trails Plan,
Redlands. County of San a Trails Plan. and County.
Bernardino shelf identify public access City of Highland
hours and seasonal limitations to Planning Director
n'Animlze unauftrized access and use
of the trails within the Planning Area as County of San
part of the Trails Master Plan. Bernardino
Regional Parks
TiRAF•1 Robertson's aggregate processing City of Highland Annually Annual Mine Mining operators shag Stop Work J
plant shall control the distribution of City Engineer inspections provide proof to the Citles- Revoke CUP
commercial haul trucks on lord streets that the mitigation is
to ensure that no new peak hour incorporated in the raining
vehicle trips are generated. Peak operations documents.
hours.are 7:00 a.m.to 9:00 a.m. and
4:00 p.m.to 6:00 p.m,
TRAF-2 Within one year of the issuance of a City of Highland Within one year of Mining operator shall On-site inspection Stop Worts 1'
Conditional Use Permit(CUP)for the City Engineer' the issuance of submit roadway Revoke CUA
new mining areascar as otherwise CHIP or as improvement plans
specified in the CUP, the following otherwise to City Engineer for
improvements shall be constructed by specified in CUP review and approval.
the permit proponent;
Third Street: Widen and extend 3'
Street from Palm Avenue to connect to
e Street at the intersection of Church
Avenuel51h Street.Convert TO Streetto
a ane-moray street traveling east
consistent with the City of Highland's
planned roadway network and
conceptuat drawings of 6* Stmet;
Provided by the City.
Appendix L Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program L-2
l
Responsible Sanctions for
Mitigation Measures t Implementing for Monitoring Timing of Method of Non-
r
Action Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification Compliance
Church Avenua/3% Street: Add a ,
northbound free right-turn lane
corresponding to the 3O Street
connection.Restripe the east(eg of the
intersection to a six-large roadway.The i
restriping to six lanes can be
accommodated within the existing
right-of-easy and is consistent broth with
the City of Highland's General Plan
roadway network and €onceptual
drawings of e Street provided by the
City. Add a southbound leg to the
intersection corresponding to the 3rd
Street connections;
Truck Traffic and Sth Street Access
(toad: Truck traffic shall conform to
Access Alternative D as described in
the,EIR and the traffic;impact analysis
for the proposed project. This truck
traffic pattern shell be maintained in
order to ensure the safe operation of
traffic on 5th Street and enforced by
the City of HigNand:
TRAF=3 Within one year of the issuance of a City of Redlands Within one year of Within one year of Submittal of evidence Stop Work I
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) or as Planning DirectDr the Issuance of the issuance of CUP that Development Impact Revoke CUP
otherwise specified in the CUP, the CUP or as or as otherwise Fees and CMP fair-share
permit proponent shalt pay City impact City of Highland otherMse specified in CUP fees have leen paid.
fees and as delineated In the Planning Director specified in CUP
respective City's Development impact
Fee prograrn and CMP'fair-share fees
based on current construction costs
estimated at time of payment. Fair
share fees shall include acceleration
lanes for the SR-30 northbound and
southbound on-ramps,
TRAF-d Within one year of the issuance of a City of Redlands Within one year of Within one year of Submittal of evidence Stop Wlork!
Conditional Use Permit(CUP)for the Plar nlN Director the issuance of the issuance of CUP that Development Impact Revoke CUP
new mining arses or as specified in ttje CUP or as or as otherwise l=ees and CMP fair-share
L-26 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Programa Appendix G
Responsible Sanctions
Mitigati• , . Implementing • r of - ee of Non-
Action
IIIIIIIII
CUP.the it applicant shall pay a]f City of Highland otherwwise specified CUP fees have been paid.
applicable City development impact Planning Director specified in CUP
fees for regional and local circulation
and CMP fair-share fees based on
current construction costs estimated at
time of payment: wed on the year
2030 analysis prepared for this EIR,
year 2030intersection impacts can be
mitigated with implementation of the
following speciflic Improvement
measurers„ which shall be in place by
year 2034;
Palm Avenuale Street Add
westbound left4cam lane
Palm Avenuee Street Add a
northbound right-turn lane. Restrip+e
U*rightmost northbound through lana
as a shared through/right-turn lane.
Widen the east leg of the intersection
to accommodate two departure lanes.
Boulder :A,venue/Greenspot Road,
Re 'pe the southbound right-tarn lance
as a shared throughlright-tum lane.
Add a northbound left-turn lane.
Oranges Street- ouldar Avenue/
Cemex Access. ,odd a northbound
through latae and a southbound though
lane.
Alabama Street-Robertson's
Access-Cemex Access Install a
tri signal and'9W a northbound
through lane and a southbound
through lane.
"i t=-S Within one year of the issuance of a City of Highland Within one year of Within one year of Submittal of evidence p Work I
C ndtiional'Use Permit(CLIP)for the Planning Director the issuance of the issuance of CLIP that Development Impact Revoke CLIP
now mining areas or as specified in the CUP or as or as otherwise Fees and CMP fair-share
Appendix L Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program L-27
Responsible Sanctions #
ethod of Non-
Mitigation Measures I Implementing for Monitoring Timing of M
Action Monitoring Froquency Verification Verification Compliance
CUP,the permit applicant shaftpaya� otfrerwisa specified in CUP fees have been paid.
applicable City development impact specified in CLIP
fees for regional and local circulation
and CMP fair-share fees based can
current construction costs estimated at
time of payment. Based on the year
2030 analysis paired for this EiR,
year 2030'impacts can be mitigated
with implementation of the following
specific improvementmessures,whtch
shad be in glace by year 2030:
SR $outhbotind Ramps/5h
Street. Widen a Street to two
eastbound through latae,, an
easftund shared through/right-turn
lane,a dedicated eastbound right-turn
lane,three westbound through lanes,
and two wastbcuand left-tarn lanes,
Provide storage JeNth for turn lams
per the traffic study,This improvement
is consistent both with the City of
Highland's General Plan roadwal
network and conceptual drawings of 5
Street provided by the City. This
Irnproverneritwouldsequire wideningof
Greenspot Road under the SR-30
bridge from 80 feet to 110 feet or
more.
SR-30 Nru#hbound ltam4as1e Street
Widen a Street to three eastbound
through lanes, an eastbound left-turn
latae, two westbound through lanes,
and a west4ound shared through-fight-
turn large (wide enough for de facto
right-turn lana).Add a northbound left-
turn tans to the off-ramp.Widening of
e Street to six fres is consistent both
with the City of Highland's General
Plan roadway network and conceptual
L-28 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Appendix
CUP,the��
feesa Cfty development impact eVedf - . .
fees for sPed#ed in CUP CUP fees have boon per,
rcuf�rL aracf Local �r�r
and CMP NI"hare fees based on
c;urre+tt construction costs esti
mated at
time ofPwMOnt
Based 2 ahaa on the
yew
Y,,'40pacts red for this EiR,
witty frhpier n of this can be mitigated
ol o uteri
uOng
s fes,wbLch
be Lha by Year 2030
SR-30Sou urs Ran ps/fsth
Street: Widen 50 Street to two
avtboundthrough lanes, an
eastbc>urld 8h red thr b/ prt-turn
W'e•a;dedicatedeastbound right-tum
La abound#h
and tde starwo „� rough lanes,
Provide -tum ferias,
th for turn I
per the tre"cWudy.This imProvernent
is consistent both Wft tate City of
HighLand's Genesi Pion ro
advvel
nOtwofkconceptual
Street ceded by the ry. of s
improvement would his
C;reen require rvidenir�of
Road under the R-30
more.
80 to '110 feet or
R-30 f+ t bound Rampe/e Sti`e
Widen a Street to threeastbound
thrOugh lsnes, an saguxKmd fit'-turps
Lane. two westbound awm9h
and a shared hared g gh'
turn Lane {wide enough for de lboo
right-tura lana).Add a n0fthbound left
ft
5 Streit to six lane to o p,Widening of
with t both
Ptah the " of Highland`sGeneral
conceptual
Lv-23
Mitigation WnitWng and Reporting Program
APPendix L
for
Responsible
Sanctions
Mitigation Measures I Implementing for Monitoring Timing of Method of Non-
A40on Monitoring, Frequency Verification Verification Compliance
drawings of Street provided by the
City. Provide storage length for turn
lanes per #.t tree study, These
improvements will require widening of
Greenspot Road under the Sid-tel
bridge from 80 feet to 110 feet or
mare_ Approximately 12 feet of
additional 'right-of-way will also be
required can the south leg of the
intersection unless Caltrans approval
to re-stripe the Gaff-ramp is obtained.
ItTIL-01 Pricer to milting excavations occurr ng City of Highland Once Prior to mining Mining operator sFrW Stop Work
in East Qua"North within 100 feet of the San excavations prov'ade written evidence
Bernardino Valley;Water Conservation District occurring in East that an agreement has
Weil No.4;the training operator of East Quarry Quarry forth within been secured;
North shall assure an agreement has been 100 feet of the San
documented between the operator,the District, Bernardino Valley
BLM, and U F S for the relocation of Weil Water Conswvation
No.d to assure the well site is outside of any District Well No.4.
ACOS Section 404 or CFC Sections 16114 at
seq. permitting jurisdiction, or if this is not
feasible,secure all such required permits prior
to beginning construction.
Appendix L Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program L-29
This Page intentionally heft Blank
L-30 Mi#igation Monitoring and Reporting Program Appendix L