HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - EVWD Board of Directors - 07/24/2019REG ULA R BO A RD MEET IN G
J uly 24, 2019 - 5:30 PM
31111 Greenspot Road, Highland, C A 92346
AGE N D A
"In order to comply with legal requirements for posting of agenda, only those items filed
with the District Clerk by 12:00 p.m. on Wednesday prior to the following Wednesday
meeting not requiring departmental investigation, will be considered by the Board of
Directors".
C A LL TO O RD ER
PLED G E O F A LLEG IA N C E
RO LL C A LL O F BO A RD MEMBERS
P U B L I C C OMME N T S
Any person wishing to speak to the Board of Directors is asked to complete a Speaker
Card and submit it to the D istrict C lerk prior to the start of the meeting. Each speaker is
limited to three (3) minutes, unless waived by the Chairman of the Board. Under the State
of C alifornia Brown Act, the Board of Directors is prohibited from discussing or taking
action on any item not listed on the posted agenda. T he matter will automatically be
referred to staff for an appropriate response or action and may appear on the agenda at a
future meeting.
AGE N D A - T his agenda contains a brief general description of each item to be
considered. Except as otherwise provided by law, no action shall be taken on any item not
appearing on the following agenda unless the Board of Directors makes a determination
that an emergency exists or that a need to take immediate action on the item came to the
attention of the District subsequent to the posting of the agenda.
1.Approval of Agenda
2.AP P RO VAL O F C ON SE N T C AL E N D AR
All matters listed under the C onsent C alendar are considered by the Board of
Directors to be routine and will be enacted in one motion. T here will be no
discussion of these items prior to the time the board considers the motion unless
members of the board, the administrative staff, or the public request specific items to
be discussed and/or removed from the Consent Calendar.
a.Approve the J uly 10, 2019 regular board meeting minutes
b.J une 2019 D isbursements: Accounts payable disbursements for the period
include check numbers 254305 through 254480, bank drafts, and A C H
Payments in the amount of $4,847,462.21 and $347,618.45 for payroll.
c.Approve Investment Report for Quarter Ended J une 30, 2019
I N F ORMAT I O N AL I T E MS
3.Sterling Natural Resource C enter Project Update
D I SC U SSI ON AN D P O SSI B L E AC T I O N I T E MS
4.C onsider Donation of Surplus Vehicle to Santa C laus Inc.
5.C onsider Resolution 2019.10 - Placement of Delinquent Water and Wastewater
C harges on the County of San Bernardino's Tax Roll for 2019-20
6.C onsider Resolution 2019.11 - C ertifying Addendum to the Final Environmental
Impact Report for the Sterling Natural Resource Center
RE P O RT S
7.Board of Directors' Reports
8.General Manager/C EO Report
9.Legal Counsel Report
10.Board of Directors' Comments
AD J O U RN
P LEAS E NO T E:
Materials related to an item on this agenda s ubmitted to the Board after dis tribution of the agenda packet
are availab le fo r pub lic ins p ectio n in the District's o ffic e lo cated at 31111 G reens p o t R d., Highland , during
normal bus ines s ho urs. Also, s uc h d o cuments are available on the District's website at www.eastvalley.org
subject to staff's ability to pos t the doc uments before the meeting.
P urs uant to G overnment C o d e S ec tio n 54954.2(a), any reques t for a d is ab ility-related modific ation or
ac commodation, inc luding auxiliary aid s o r s ervic es , that is s o ught in order to p artic ip ate in the above-
agendized p ublic meeting s ho uld be d irected to the District C lerk at (909) 885-4900 at leas t 72 ho urs prior
to said meeting.
1
Minutes 07/10/2019 sma
Draft pending approval
EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT July 10, 2019
REGULAR BOARD MEETING
MINUTES
The Chairman of the Board called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. Ms. Antrim led
the flag salute.
PRESENT: Directors: Carrillo, Coats, Goodrich, Smith
ABSENT: Director Morales
STAFF: John Mura, General Manager/CEO; Brian Tompkins, Chief
Financial Officer; Jeff Noelte, Director of Engineering and
Operations; Shayla Antrim, Senior Administrative Assistant
LEGAL COUNSEL: Jean Cihigoyenetche
GUEST(s): Members of the public
BUNKER HILL BASIN UPDATE BY SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY MUNICIPAL WATER
DISTRICT
Mr. Bob Tincher, Deputy General Manager of the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water
District, provided a presentation on an update of the Bunker Hill Basin: San Bernardino
Basin Health.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Chairman Carrillo declared the public participation section of the meeting open at 5:38
p.m.
There being no written or verbal comments, the public participation section was closed.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
M/S/C (Goodrich-Smith) that the July 10, 2019 agenda be approved as submitted.
APPROVE THE JUNE 26, 2019 REGULAR BOARD MEETING MINUTES
M/S/C (Coats-Goodrich) that the Board approve the June 26, 2019 regular board
meeting minutes as submitted.
2
Minutes 07/10/2019 sma
DIRECTORS’ FEES AND EXPENSES FOR JUNE 2019
M/S/C (Coats-Goodrich) that the Board approve the Directors’ fees and expenses
for June 2019 as submitted.
RENEW CONTRACT WITH ANTHONY’S IRRIGATION FOR THE WEATHER-BASED
IRRIGATION CONTROLLER DIRECT INSTALLATION PROGRAM
The Conservation Coordinator provided an overview of the District’s Weather-Based
Irrigation Controller (WBIC) Direct Install program; she highlighted the program’s
success; and expressed the District’s and customers’ satisfaction with Mr. Dwayne
Anthony, owner of Anthony’s Irrigation. She stated that being consistent with the
District’s Purchasing Procurement Policy, staff is requesting that Anthony’s Irrigation
be selected utilizing the sole source exemption.
M/S/C (Goodrich-Morales) that the Board authorize the General Manager/CEO to
execute a new agreement with Anthony’s Irrigation for the Weather-Based Irrigation
Controller Direct Installation Program.
SECURITY FENCE AGREEMENT FOR TREATMENT PLANT 134
The Operations Manager provided details regarding the installation of a new security
fence around Plant 134; he stated that the District is in the process of updating the
emergency response plan, in which Plant 134 has been identified as one of the District’s
most critical facilities. He stated that in preliminary assessments, it has been
determined that it is of an urgent matter to reduce the vulnerability of Plant 134; and
staff is recommending that Westbrook install a security wrought iron fence in an amount
not to exceed $210,885.00.
M/S/C (Goodrich-Coats) that the Board authorize the General Manager/CEO to
proceed with the installation of a security wrought iron fence around Plant 134 as
submitted.
BOARD OF DIRECTORS’ REPORTS
Director Morales reported on the following: July 9 he attended the San Bernardino Board
of Water Commissioners meeting; July 9 he attended the Finance and Human Resources
Committee meeting where they met with auditors; and July 10 he attended the
Association of California Water Agencies Region 9 meeting where they discussed the
upcoming preliminary agenda for a local education program.
Director Goodrich reported on the following: July 4 he attended the City of Highland 4th
of July parade where he greeted the community along with Director Coats; and July 5
he met with the General Manager/CEO to discuss District business.
Vice Chairman Smith reported on the following: July 5 he met with the General
Manager/CEO to review the agenda; and July 10 he met with the General Manager/CEO
for his monthly meeting to discuss District business.
3
Minutes 07/10/2019 sma
Director Coats reported on the following: July 2 he observed SWAT training at Plant 134
conducted by the San Bernardino Sheriff’s Department; July 2 he attended San
Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District Board meeting; July 9 he met with the
General Manager/CEO to discuss District business; and July 9 he attended the Finance
and Human Resources Committee meeting.
Chairman Carrillo reported on the following: July 2 he observed SWAT training at Plant
134 conducted by the San Bernardino Sheriff’s Department; July 5 he participated in a
teleconference with the General Manager/CEO to review the agenda and to discuss
District business; and July 9 he met with District auditors.
Information only.
GENERAL MANAGER/CEO REPORT
The General Manager/CEO reported on the following: June 28, the Employee Events
Association held its annual Family Movie Night with a great turnout and he thanked
Highland Music Company for providing music; July 2, San Bernardino Sheriff’s
Department SWAT Team conducted their armed suspect recovery training at Plant
134; he stated that this week two science teachers from Rialto Unified School
District are visiting the District for an externship in preparation for teaching Water
Pathway courses in the fall; and today he and Ms. Kerrie Bryan took San Bernardino
City Unified School District Superintendent, Dale Marsden, and the School Board
President for a tour of Plant 134 and District Headquarters.
He informed the Board of the following upcoming events:
• July 16 the General Manager/CEO will be providing a presentation on the Sterling
Natural Resource Center project to San Bernardino City Unified School District
faculty.
• July 22 at 2:30 p.m. the District will be holding its Engineering and Operations
Committee meeting.
Information only.
LEGAL COUNSEL REPORT
No report at this time.
BOARD OF DIRECTORS’ COMMENTS
Director Morales complimented staff for their work on the annual Consumer Confidence
Report.
Director Coats agreed with Director Morales’ comments.
Vice Chairman Smith expressed that he enjoyed Family Movie Night.
4
Minutes 07/10/2019 sma
Chairman Carrillo thanked Mr. Dwayne Anthony and his wife for attending tonight’s
Board meeting.
Information only.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 6:12 p.m.
___________________________
Chris Carrillo, Board President
__________________________
John Mura, Secretary
B O AR D AGE N D A S TAF F R E P ORT
Agenda Item #2.b .
Meeting Date: July 24, 2019
C ons ent Item
To: G o verning Board Memb ers
F rom: G eneral Manager/C EO
Subject: June 2019 Dis b urs ements : Acc ounts payab le d is b urs ements for the p erio d inc lude chec k numb ers
254305 through 254480, b ank drafts, and AC H P ayments in the amount of $4,847,462.21 and
$347,618.45 fo r payroll.
R E C O MME N D AT IO N:
S taff recommends that the Board of Direc tors (Bo ard ) review and appro ve the District’s expens e
disburs ements fo r the period June 1, 2019 through June 30, 2019 in the amo unt of $5,195,080.66.
B AC KGR O UN D / AN ALYS IS :
In the continued effo rt to b e fis cally trans p arent, the p ayment register fo r s upplies , materials , services , and
p ayroll for May 2019 is attac hed for review and ap p ro val. T his p ro ces s provides the Bo ard and the p ublic an
o p p o rtunity to review the exp enses of the Dis tric t. Acc o unts P ayable is p ro cess ed weekly, while p ayroll is
p ro ces s ed bi-weekly. Info rmation to justify eac h expenditure is available thro ugh the F inanc e Department.
Acc o unts payab le d is b urs ements for the p erio d inc lude c hec k numbers 254305 thro ugh 254480, bank drafts ,
and AC H P ayments in the amount of $4,847,462.21 and $347,618.45 for payroll. S ignific ant expenses greater
than o r equal to $50,000 are further exp lained below:
R ecommended b y:
Jo hn Mura
G eneral Manager/C EO
R espec tfully sub mitted:
Brian Tomp kins
C hief F inancial O ffic er
AG E N C Y G O ALS AN D OB J E C T IVE S :
G o al and O bjec tives I I - Maintain a C ommitment to S us tainab ility, Transparenc y, and Ac c o untability
a) P rac tice Trans parent and Ac countab le F is cal Management
R E VIE W B Y O T HE R S :
T his agenda item has been reviewed by the F inanc e Dep artment.
F IS C AL IMPAC T
S ufficient funds have b een b udgeted in the adopted F Y 2018-19 Bud get.
ATTACH M E N TS:
Description Type
J une 2 01 9 P ayment Register Backup Material
PAYMENT REGISTER
JUNE 1, 2019 - JUNE 30, 2019
PAYMENT DATE NUMBER VENDOR NAME AMOUNT
6/3/2019 254312 Frenette Ellis 650.00
6/5/2019 254305 CHRISTINA KOKESH 150.00
6/5/2019 254306 LUIS CORTEZ 69.55
6/5/2019 254307 RAMON PINA 8.12
6/5/2019 254308 D & A INVESTMENTS 115.22
6/5/2019 254309 GLADYS MILLER 24.10
6/5/2019 254310 JOHN KINCAID 68.37
6/5/2019 254311 ROBERT P BEAUREGARD JR 57.07
6/5/2019 254313 AMERICAN FIDELITY ASSURANCE COMPANY 915.09
6/5/2019 254314 CALIFORNIA BANK & TRUST 13,015.60
6/5/2019 254315 CALIFORNIA BANK & TRUST 116,695.66
6/5/2019 254318 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, PUBLIC WORKS DEPT 2,804.90
6/5/2019 254319 COLONIAL LIFE, PREMIUM 582.66
6/5/2019 254320 COMPUTERIZED EMBROIDERY COMPANY, INC 1,148.13
6/5/2019 254321 DANIELS TIRE SERVICE, INC 3,001.65
6/5/2019 254322 DIRECTV 241.97
6/5/2019 254323 EXPERIAN 210.88
6/5/2019 254324 GARY YOUNG 533.75
6/5/2019 254325 GLADWELL GOVERNMENTAL SERVICES INC 980.00
6/5/2019 254326 IDEA HALL 8,043.75
6/5/2019 254327 K & L HARDWARE 38.76
6/5/2019 254328 LOWE'S 1,116.36
6/5/2019 254329 MULTIPLIER / MAVEN'S NOTEBOOK 1,000.00
6/5/2019 254330 RUHNAU CLARKE ARCHITECTS 8,200.00
6/5/2019 254331 SAFETY KLEEN CORP 266.13
6/5/2019 254332 SO CAL OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH SERVICES 170.00
6/5/2019 254333 STAPLES BUSINESS ADVANTAGE 556.84
6/5/2019 254334 THE HOME DEPOT PRO 33.19
6/5/2019 254335 THE SUN 119.97
6/5/2019 254336 UNIFIRST CORPORATION 520.36
6/5/2019 254338 VERIZON 1,236.45
6/6/2019 254339 MANGUN TAMBA 1,490.00
6/12/2019 254340 LEMARC INVESTMENTS LLC 67.48
6/12/2019 254341 O'DONNELL CONSTRUCTION 1,716.30
6/12/2019 254342 HARDY & HARPER, INC. 1,571.70
6/12/2019 254343 GREGORY S REYNOLDS 150.00
6/12/2019 254344 CONTINENTAL CORPORATION 627.57
6/12/2019 254345 RODILSON ECHEVERRIA 210.29
6/12/2019 254346 DENNIS GIBSON 150.00
6/12/2019 254347 GLORIA HENLEY-CHAPRON 100.00
6/12/2019 254348 JOSE ALCANTAR 59.96
6/12/2019 254351 AUTO ZONE, INC. 6.45
6/12/2019 254352 Charles Ballew 600.00
6/13/2019 254353 AMERICAN FIDELITY ASSURANCE COMPANY (FSA) 1,387.62
PAYMENT REGISTER
JUNE 1, 2019 - JUNE 30, 2019 Page 1 of 7
PAYMENT DATE NUMBER VENDOR NAME AMOUNT
6/13/2019 254354 ANTHESIS 5,262.50
6/13/2019 254355 APPLEONE EMPLOYMENT SERVICE 498.96
6/13/2019 254356 BALFOUR BEATTY INFRASTRUCTURE, INC 2,503,250.00
6/13/2019 254357 BALFOUR BEATTY INFRASTRUCTURE, INC 58,488.97
6/13/2019 254358 BRIGGS MARKETING INC. 5,233.00
6/13/2019 254359 BURRTEC WASTE (GROUP) INDUSTRIES, INC. 568.72
6/13/2019 254360 BURRTEC WASTE (GROUP) INDUSTRIES, INC. 693.70
6/13/2019 254361 CHEM-TECH INTERNATIONAL INC 1,139.84
6/13/2019 254362 COMPUTERIZED EMBROIDERY COMPANY, INC 428.32
6/13/2019 254363 CULLIGAN OF ONTARIO 97.00
6/13/2019 254364 DONEGAN TREE SERVICE 350.00
6/13/2019 254365 EYE MED VISION CARE 1,350.52
6/13/2019 254366 FAIRVIEW FORD SALES,INC 373.58
6/13/2019 254367 HARPER & ASSOCIATES ENGINEERING, INC 10,320.00
6/13/2019 254368 INLAND WATER WORKS SUPPLY CO 1,871.68
6/13/2019 254369 J&R CONCRETE PRODUCTS, INC 101.18
6/13/2019 254370 JORDON R HERRON 210.00
6/13/2019 254371 K & L HARDWARE 16.13
6/13/2019 254372 KONICA MINOLTA 402.13
6/13/2019 254373 NASSAU LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY 66.74
6/13/2019 254374 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY REGIONAL PARKS 1,065.00
6/13/2019 254375 SO CAL GAS 279.97
6/13/2019 254376 SO CAL OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH SERVICES 213.33
6/13/2019 254377 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY 114,468.51
6/13/2019 254378 THE SHERWIN WILLIAMS CO. 763.56
6/13/2019 254379 THE WINNER INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY INC 908.15
6/13/2019 254380 UNIFIRST CORPORATION 471.03
6/13/2019 254381 UNITED TOWING SERVICE, INC 150.00
6/13/2019 254382 UPS 526.62
6/13/2019 254383 VALERO MARKETING & SUPPLY COMP 12,279.42
6/13/2019 254384 VERIZON 78.04
6/17/2019 254385 CHAD EASTER 298.50
6/17/2019 254386 CINDY ROGERS 92.13
6/17/2019 254387 HELLEN NGUYEN 100.00
6/17/2019 254388 JUSTIN TALLANT 198.00
6/17/2019 254389 PEIFANG JIANG 200.00
6/17/2019 254390 RONALD BONE 89.11
6/17/2019 254391 STEVE JOHNSON 200.00
6/17/2019 254392 VINCENTE TENERELLI 5.99
6/17/2019 254393 M & A ENTERPRISES, LLC 1,096.47
6/17/2019 254394 M & A ENTERPRISES, LLC 467.13
6/17/2019 254395 M & A ENTERPRISES, LLC 1,950.88
6/17/2019 254396 MANUEL VALDEZ Jr. 26.63
6/17/2019 254397 JULIE CUNNINGHAM 92.24
6/17/2019 254398 GATEWAY EQUITIES LLC 122.27
6/17/2019 254399 PATRICK GARVEY 123.44
6/17/2019 254400 DAVID MEYER 37.72
6/17/2019 254401 OPENDOOR PROPERTY LLC 69.34
6/17/2019 254402 GOLDEN COAST CAPITAL 86.00
6/17/2019 254403 SAMER FARROUH 85.79
6/17/2019 254404 RUBY BARAJAS 15.33
6/19/2019 254405 ONLINE RESOURCES CORPORATION 100.41
6/19/2019 254406 NICK CORNEJO 17.43
PAYMENT REGISTER
JUNE 1, 2019 - JUNE 30, 2019 Page 2 of 7
PAYMENT DATE NUMBER VENDOR NAME AMOUNT
6/19/2019 254407 AT&T 49.69
6/19/2019 254408 BURGESS MOVING & STORAGE 2,220.15
6/19/2019 254409 CERTIFIED LABORATORIES, NCH CORP. 401.46
6/19/2019 254410 CHEM-TECH INTERNATIONAL INC 4,663.48
6/19/2019 254411 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, DEPT OF PUBLIC WORKS 1,585.00
6/19/2019 254412 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION 203.19
6/19/2019 254413 FIRST CHOICE SERVICES 818.60
6/19/2019 254414 FLEET MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT 529.37
6/19/2019 254415 GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION 160.00
6/19/2019 254416 GRANT FARM 14,131.25
6/19/2019 254417 HATFIELD BUICK 86.78
6/19/2019 254418 HIGH DESERT MOUNTAIN WATER ASSOC. 100.00
6/19/2019 254419 HIGHLAND COMMUNITY NEWS 3,150.00
6/19/2019 254420 HUB CONSTRUCTION SPECIALTIES 410.35
6/19/2019 254421 IDEA HALL 7,871.25
6/19/2019 254422 INLAND WATER WORKS SUPPLY CO 1,420.72
6/19/2019 254423 K & L HARDWARE 96.23
6/19/2019 254424 NORTH FORK WATER CO 105,410.56
6/19/2019 254425 PETTY CASH 157.22
6/19/2019 254426 POWERS ELECTRIC PRODUCTS CO 537.90
6/19/2019 254427 PRIDE AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR, INC. 1,744.53
6/19/2019 254428 RONALD C. BRAATZ, LIFTOFF, LLC 451.28
6/19/2019 254429 SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL WATER DEPARTMENT 716,865.42
6/19/2019 254430 SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL WATER DEPARTMENT 17,961.78
6/19/2019 254431 STAPLES BUSINESS ADVANTAGE 62.55
6/19/2019 254432 U.S. BANCORP SERVICE CENTER 44,947.30
6/19/2019 254437 UNIFIRST CORPORATION 430.09
6/19/2019 254438 VALLEY OFFICE EQUIPMENT 1.03
6/24/2019 254443 BETTY VAUGHN 200.00
6/24/2019 254444 CASIANO PEREZ 200.00
6/24/2019 254445 DANIELLA WAITSCHIES 149.99
6/24/2019 254446 DONALD BENFIELD 200.00
6/24/2019 254447 JOSE ALCANTAR 99.98
6/24/2019 254449 MICHAEL LOHR 100.00
6/24/2019 254450 PAMELA COSSER 200.00
6/24/2019 254451 SABRINA ESPARZA 120.41
6/24/2019 254452 SHRDDHA SINGHI 359.94
6/24/2019 254453 TRAVIS KOTTWITZ 99.00
6/24/2019 254454 URSULA KUCHARSKI 150.00
6/26/2019 254439 IVAN ESTRELLA 80.27
6/26/2019 254440 MORE CASH FOR HOMES, LLC 207.13
6/26/2019 254441 SU LIN RITCHIE 75.96
6/26/2019 254442 MAGGIE INC. 104.76
6/26/2019 254455 ADVANCED OFFICE, IMAGING PLUS 409.79
6/26/2019 254456 AMERICAN FIDELITY ASSURANCE COMPANY 1,830.18
6/26/2019 254457 AMERICAN FIDELITY ASSURANCE COMPANY (FSA) 1,387.62
6/26/2019 254458 ANTHESIS 3,171.00
6/26/2019 254459 APPLEONE EMPLOYMENT SERVICE 1,003.07
6/26/2019 254460 AT&T 156.81
6/26/2019 254461 AT&T 324.07
6/26/2019 254462 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, PUBLIC WORKS DEPT 2,804.90
6/26/2019 254463 CONSOLIDATED ELECTRICAL DIST 165.28
6/26/2019 254464 CSR AIR CONDITIONING & HEATING 560.00
PAYMENT REGISTER
JUNE 1, 2019 - JUNE 30, 2019 Page 3 of 7
PAYMENT DATE NUMBER VENDOR NAME AMOUNT
6/26/2019 254465 DENTAL HEALTH SERVICES 320.40
6/26/2019 254466 HATFIELD BUICK 38.07
6/26/2019 254467 HIGHLAND SENIOR CENTER 25.00
6/26/2019 254468 INLAND WATER WORKS SUPPLY CO 8,416.34
6/26/2019 254469 K & L HARDWARE 39.85
6/26/2019 254470 METROPOLITAN LIFE INS CO 115.80
6/26/2019 254471 PETAS CAR CARE- KEVIN KOHRELL 1,435.72
6/26/2019 254472 PETTY CASH 53.24
6/26/2019 254473 SO CAL GAS 14.79
6/26/2019 254474 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY 7,211.01
6/26/2019 254475 STAPLES BUSINESS ADVANTAGE 909.87
6/26/2019 254476 THE HOME DEPOT PRO 92.24
6/26/2019 254477 UNIFIRST CORPORATION 667.71
6/26/2019 254479 UNITED TOWING SERVICE, INC 150.00
6/27/2019 254480 HARDY & HARPER, INC. 371.52
BANK DRAFTS
6/3/2019 DFT0003361 MERCHANT BANKCD 254.81
6/4/2019 DFT0003359 CALPERS/ MEDICAL 4,468.33
6/4/2019 DFT0003360 CALPERS/ MEDICAL 81,776.39
6/4/2019 DFT0003362 PayNearMe, Inc. 89.55
6/10/2019 DFT0003374 TRANSFIRST DISCOUNT 11,426.57
6/11/2019 DFT0003372 FORTE, ACH DIRECT INC, ACH FEES 4,095.29
6/12/2019 DFT0003365 CALPERS/ DEFERRED COMPENSATION 17,770.71
6/12/2019 DFT0003366 CALPERS/ RETIREMENT 39,933.13
6/12/2019 DFT0003370 STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT 2,442.47
6/12/2019 DFT0003373 PayNearMe, Inc. 306.46
6/14/2019 DFT0003364 CA SDI Tax 2,389.07
6/14/2019 DFT0003367 Federal Payroll Tax 27,145.14
6/14/2019 DFT0003368 Medicare 7,254.12
6/14/2019 DFT0003369 Social Security 145.80
6/14/2019 DFT0003371 State Payroll Tax 10,153.83
6/19/2019 DFT0003375 CA SDI Tax 30.78
6/19/2019 DFT0003376 Medicare 89.28
6/19/2019 DFT0003377 PayNearMe, Inc. 242.78
6/21/2019 DFT0003387 CBB 356.00
6/26/2019 DFT0003380 CALPERS/ DEFERRED COMPENSATION 17,840.48
6/26/2019 DFT0003381 CALPERS/ RETIREMENT 39,839.61
6/26/2019 DFT0003385 STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT 2,442.47
6/26/2019 DFT0003388 PayNearMe, Inc. 173.13
6/28/2019 DFT0003379 CA SDI Tax 2,353.73
6/28/2019 DFT0003382 Federal Payroll Tax 24,536.53
6/28/2019 DFT0003383 Medicare 7,151.58
6/28/2019 DFT0003384 Social Security 1,045.24
6/28/2019 DFT0003386 State Payroll Tax 9,288.72
6/28/2019 DFT0003389 PayNearMe, Inc. 55.72
6/28/2019 DFT0003390 VERIFONE INC 22.00
6/28/2019 DFT0003391 CALPERS,GASB & 1959 SURVIVOR BENEFITS 3,736.50
ACH PAYMENTS
6/5/2019 10005906 ADS LLC 1,600.00
6/5/2019 10005907 ADVANTAGE FLEET WASH, INC 775.00
6/5/2019 10005908 AMANDA PARRILLA, ROXS WITH A TWIST 650.00
PAYMENT REGISTER
JUNE 1, 2019 - JUNE 30, 2019 Page 4 of 7
PAYMENT DATE NUMBER VENDOR NAME AMOUNT
6/5/2019 10005909 BARRY'S SECURITY SERVICES, INC 3,983.08
6/5/2019 10005910 CALIFORNIA SURVEYING & DRAFTING SUPPLY INC. 389.12
6/5/2019 10005911 CAROL CALES 503.05
6/5/2019 10005912 CHERRY VALLEY NURSERY MAR-LYN BUILDERS, INC. 724.01
6/5/2019 10005913 CLEARFLY COMMUNATIONS 1,332.01
6/5/2019 10005914 DANIEL DAVIS 501.20
6/5/2019 10005915 DAVID HERNANDEZ 391.92
6/5/2019 10005916 ELISEO OCHOA 509.54
6/5/2019 10005917 EXCEL LANDSCAPE, ICN 12,200.00
6/5/2019 10005918 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES, INC. 12,358.07
6/5/2019 10005919 GARY STURDIVAN 609.28
6/5/2019 10005920 GERALD SIEVERS 609.28
6/5/2019 10005921 GOLDEN STATE LABOR COMPLIANCE, LLC 4,750.00
6/5/2019 10005922 GORDON GRANT 523.40
6/5/2019 10005923 INDUSTRIAL RUBBER & SUPPLY 835.59
6/5/2019 10005924 JC LAW FIRM 11,605.00
6/5/2019 10005925 JOSE MILLAN 360.00
6/5/2019 10005926 LESLIE'S POOL SUPPLIES, INC. 95.55
6/5/2019 10005927 LINCOLN NATIONAL LIFE INS CO. 2,257.88
6/5/2019 10005928 MANAGED HEALTH NETWORK 235.20
6/5/2019 10005929 MANAGED MOBILE, INC. 4,441.45
6/5/2019 10005930 MCMASTER-CARR 320.70
6/5/2019 10005931 MERLIN JOHNSON CONSTRUCTION 49,395.00
6/5/2019 10005932 MICHAEL HENDERSON 594.16
6/5/2019 10005933 MIKE MALONEY 647.10
6/5/2019 10005934 MINUTEMAN PRESS OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 751.61
6/5/2019 10005935 PAMELA FRENCH TIMELESS PLAQUES $ AWARDS 240.28
6/5/2019 10005936 PATTON'S SALES CORP 149.19
6/5/2019 10005937 PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL GROUP 9,556.14
6/5/2019 10005938 PROPHIX SOFTWARE INC 9,785.00
6/5/2019 10005939 QUINN COMPANY 568.98
6/5/2019 10005940 QUINTANA, WATTS & HARTMANN LLC 4,200.00
6/5/2019 10005941 REBECCA KASTEN 533.61
6/5/2019 10005942 SAFETY COMPLIANCE COMPANY 200.00
6/5/2019 10005943 SITEONE LANDSCAPE SUPPLY , LLC 229.10
6/5/2019 10005944 SUPERIOR AUTOMOTIVE WAREHOUSE, INC. 40.40
6/5/2019 10005945 TESCO CONTROLS, INC. 39,765.00
6/5/2019 10005946 UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT 421.63
6/5/2019 10005947 VULCAN MATERIALS CO/ CALMAT CO 712.78
6/13/2019 10005948 ALLIED REFRIGERATION INC. 648.73
6/13/2019 10005949 AMANDA PARRILLA, ROXS WITH A TWIST 200.00
6/13/2019 10005950 ANTHONY'S IRRIGATION 7,670.00
6/13/2019 10005951 BARRY'S SECURITY SERVICES, INC 1,920.35
6/13/2019 10005952 CINTAS CORPORATION (FIRST AID) 416.49
6/13/2019 10005953 CLIFF'S PEST CONTROL 323.00
6/13/2019 10005954 CORE & MAIN LP 3,163.46
6/13/2019 10005955 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, RECORDER- CLERK 648.00
6/13/2019 10005956 EVWD EMPLOYEES EVENTS ASSOC 358.92
6/13/2019 10005957 EXCEL LANDSCAPE, ICN 78.28
6/13/2019 10005958 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES, INC. 6,839.46
6/13/2019 10005959 FILARSKY & WATT LLP 155.00
6/13/2019 10005960 FMB TRUCK OUTFITTERS, INC 820.93
6/13/2019 10005961 FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS 573.33
PAYMENT REGISTER
JUNE 1, 2019 - JUNE 30, 2019 Page 5 of 7
PAYMENT DATE NUMBER VENDOR NAME AMOUNT
6/13/2019 10005962 GENESIS INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY, INC 1,056.17
6/13/2019 10005963 HAAKER EQUIPMENT COMPANY 11,284.16
6/13/2019 10005964 I.C.W.A. 25.00
6/13/2019 10005965 INDUSTRIAL RUBBER & SUPPLY 92.50
6/13/2019 10005966 JOSE MILLAN 120.00
6/13/2019 10005967 LEGEND PUMP AND WELL 96,787.00
6/13/2019 10005968 MCMASTER-CARR 53.24
6/13/2019 10005969 MILLER SPATIAL SERVICES LLC 1,280.00
6/13/2019 10005970 MINUTEMAN PRESS OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 6,107.41
6/13/2019 10005971 PATTON'S SALES CORP 254.02
6/13/2019 10005972 PLUS 1 PERFORMANCE 1,016.51
6/13/2019 10005973 PR DIAMOND PRODUCTS, INC 1,330.00
6/13/2019 10005974 QUINN COMPANY 2,905.75
6/13/2019 10005975 RBC RESOURCES 2,585.00
6/13/2019 10005976 S & J PLUMBING, INC. 1,020.00
6/13/2019 10005977 SAFETY COMPLIANCE COMPANY 200.00
6/13/2019 10005978 SCHUBERT ENTERPRISES INC 627.50
6/13/2019 10005979 SHRED-IT US JV LLC 128.76
6/13/2019 10005980 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 300.00
6/13/2019 10005981 SUPERIOR AUTOMOTIVE WAREHOUSE, INC. 34.46
6/13/2019 10005982 TK CONSTRUCTION/ KIRTLEY CONSTRUCTION INC 49,485.00
6/13/2019 10005983 VERIZON WIRELESS 4,050.60
6/13/2019 10005985 VULCAN MATERIALS CO/ CALMAT CO 709.99
6/13/2019 10005986 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY 136.10
6/13/2019 10005987 WIRELESS GUYS, INC. 20,541.28
6/19/2019 10005988 ADVANTAGE FLEET WASH, INC 350.00
6/19/2019 10005989 AIRGAS, USA LLC 198.20
6/19/2019 10005990 AMANDA PARRILLA, ROXS WITH A TWIST 270.00
6/19/2019 10005991 BARRY'S SECURITY SERVICES, INC 1,738.53
6/19/2019 10005992 BUCHALTER NEMER 96.00
6/19/2019 10005993 CLINICAL LAB OF S B 6,314.75
6/19/2019 10005994 CORELOGIC SOLUTIONS INC. 360.50
6/19/2019 10005995 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATES/ESA 1,131.87
6/19/2019 10005996 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES, INC. 89.64
6/19/2019 10005997 FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS 188.44
6/19/2019 10005998 INFOSEND, INC 300.00
6/19/2019 10005999 JC LAW FIRM 11,150.00
6/19/2019 10006000 LEGEND PUMP AND WELL 15,410.00
6/19/2019 10006001 MANAGED HEALTH NETWORK 235.20
6/19/2019 10006002 MANAGED MOBILE, INC. 3,475.48
6/19/2019 10006003 MCCRAY ENTERPRISES 494.87
6/19/2019 10006004 MERLIN JOHNSON CONSTRUCTION 122,748.03
6/19/2019 10006005 MINUTEMAN PRESS OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 30,134.39
6/19/2019 10006006 NEOFUNDS BY NEOPOST 500.00
6/19/2019 10006007 OFFICIAL PAYMENTS CORP. 37.00
6/19/2019 10006008 ORION SYSTEMS INTEGRATORS LLC 2,000.00
6/19/2019 10006009 PATTON'S SALES CORP 47.36
6/19/2019 10006010 PLUS 1 PERFORMANCE 976.42
6/19/2019 10006011 QUINN COMPANY 2,468.32
6/19/2019 10006012 SHIELA BOYD 44.33
6/19/2019 10006013 SUPERIOR AUTOMOTIVE WAREHOUSE, INC. 189.54
6/19/2019 10006014 TIMELESS PLAQUES & AWARDS/PAMELA FRENCH 68.97
6/19/2019 10006015 VULCAN MATERIALS CO/ CALMAT CO 1,446.57
PAYMENT REGISTER
JUNE 1, 2019 - JUNE 30, 2019 Page 6 of 7
PAYMENT DATE NUMBER VENDOR NAME AMOUNT
6/24/2019 10006016 JERRY D ZAHARIAS 300.00
6/26/2019 10006017 AIRGAS, USA LLC 236.41
6/26/2019 10006018 APPLIED MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES & SOLUTIONS LLC 1,018.44
6/26/2019 10006019 ASHOK K. DHINGRA, AKD CONSULTING 13,182.06
6/26/2019 10006020 BARRY'S SECURITY SERVICES, INC 1,952.92
6/26/2019 10006021 BOOT BARN, INC 508.57
6/26/2019 10006022 CINTAS CORPORATION (FIRST AID) 173.00
6/26/2019 10006023 COAST FITNESS REPAIR SHOP 250.00
6/26/2019 10006024 DIMENSION DATA NORTH AMERICA 4,411.39
6/26/2019 10006025 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATES/ESA 14,282.50
6/26/2019 10006026 EVWD EMPLOYEES EVENTS ASSOC 408.92
6/26/2019 10006027 FLEETCREW, INC. 421.25
6/26/2019 10006028 FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS 515.61
6/26/2019 10006029 HARRINGTON INDUSTRIAL PLASTIC 1,541.55
6/26/2019 10006030 I.C.W.A. 700.00
6/26/2019 10006031 JOSE MILLAN 2,870.00
6/26/2019 10006032 LANDS END INC 868.95
6/26/2019 10006033 MANAGED MOBILE, INC. 3,065.89
6/26/2019 10006034 NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION RENTALS 158.49
6/26/2019 10006035 PLUMBERS DEPOT INC. 652.14
6/26/2019 10006036 PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL GROUP 9,684.68
6/26/2019 10006037 QUINN COMPANY 247.04
6/26/2019 10006038 RAFTELIS FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS, INC 631.49
6/26/2019 10006039 SCHUBERT ENTERPRISES INC 220.00
6/26/2019 10006040 USA BLUE BOOK 148.07
6/26/2019 10006041 VULCAN MATERIALS CO/ CALMAT CO 2,359.88
6/26/2019 10006042 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY 433.41
TOTAL 4,847,462.21$
PAYMENT REGISTER
JUNE 1, 2019 - JUNE 30, 2019 Page 7 of 7
B O AR D AG E N DA S TAF F R E P O RT
Agenda Item #2.c .
Meeting Date: July 24, 2019
C onsent Item
To: G overning Bo ard Members
F rom: G eneral Manager/C E O
S ubject: Ap pro ve Inves tment R epo rt fo r Q uarter Ended June 30, 2019
R E C O MME N DAT IO N:
S taff rec ommends that the Bo ard of Direc tors ac c ept and file the attac hed Investment R ep ort fo r the quarter ended ,
June 30, 2019.
B AC KG R OUN D / AN ALYS IS :
C alifornia Government C ode §53646(b) requires the T reasurer or C F O of a local agency to submit a quarterly report on
the agency’s investments to the legislative body of the agency within 30 days of the end of each quarter.
T he attached Investment Report shows all of the District’s cash and investments, restricted and unrestricted, as of June
30, 2019. Attachment A presents the investment securities purchased and retired during the quarter April to June 2019.
Increases and decreases in highly liquid funds, such as L AI F, are explained in the narrative below.
Unrestricted Investments
L AI F
T he balanc e held in the Loc al Agenc y Inves tment F und at the beginning of the quarter was $14,690,055. Interes t
earned during the previous quarter of $106,880 was po s ted to the acco unt in April. T here were no trans fers during the
q uarter res ulting in a b alanc e o f $14,796,935, at the end of the quarter.
LAIF earnings for the quarter end ed June 30, 2019 were $94,539.28, c alc ulated at an app ortionment rate of 2.57%; up
fro m 2.55% whic h had been in effect fo r the previous q uarter. T he earnings were pos ted to the Dis trict’s acco unt on
July 15, 2019.
C itizen’s Business Bank (C B B) Wealth Management
T he total (b oo k) value of the as s ets held with C BB increas ed $25,101 to $5,759,321 d uring the quarter end ed June 30,
2019. T he balanc e in this acco unt is held bo th in a money market ac co unt ($350,937) and in a $5,408,384 p ortfo lio of
Treas ury and federal agency s ec urities s hown on Attachment A.
Net interes t payments rec eived on s ec urities in the Dis tric t’s p ortfo lio were $26,540 and funds held in money market
ac co unts earned $2,077.
Investment manager fees paid during the quarter were $2,159.
R ec ommend ed by:
John Mura
G eneral Manager/C EO
R es pectfully s ubmitted:
Brian Tomp kins
C hief F inancial O fficer
T here were no Dis tric t trans fers to or from this investment acco unt during the q uarter.
T he fo llowing s c hedule summarizes the ac tivity fo r Unrestric ted Inves tments during the Q uarter ended June 30, 2019:
Restricted Investments
Trust acc ounts with Unio n Bank are used to s afeguard funds whic h are restric ted b y bond c ovenants . T he acco unts
remaining o pen as of June 30, 2019, are used to rec eive Dis tric t d eposits, from whic h the Trus tee (Union Bank) p ays
District bond holders .
S emiannual bond payment dates are April 1st and O ctober 1st.
S ummary S ched ule of Union Bank Trustee Acco unts
T he fo llowing s c hedule summarizes ac tivity in the Union Bank ac c ounts for the Q uarter end ed June 30, 2019:
AGE NC Y GOALS AN D O B J E C T IVE S:
G o al and O b jec tives I I - Maintain a C ommitment to S ustainab ility, Trans parency, and Acc ountability
a) P rac tice Trans parent and Acc ountable F is c al Management
R E VIE W B Y O T HE R S:
T his agenda item has been reviewed b y the F inanc e Dep artment.
F IS C AL IMPAC T
T here is no fis c al imp ac t as so ciated with this agend a item.
ATTAC H M E NTS:
Descriptio n Type
Investment Rpt Qtr Ended J un 3 0 2019 Backup Material
Attachment A - C BB Investment Activity Rpt Qtr Ended J un 30
2019 Backup Material
EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
Investment Activity
Quarter Ended June 30, 2019
Market
Purch Units /Maturity Amort Cost Adjusted Cost Matured /Adjusted Cost Value
Date Issuer CUSIP Yield Face Value Date 4/1/2019 Adjustment 4/1/2019 Purchases Called 6/30/2019 6/30/2019 Water Sewer
01/27/16 Federal Home Loan Bank 3130A6XY8 2.000%100,000 01/27/21 100,000.00 100,000.00 100,000.00 99,962.00 99,962.00
10/12/16 Federal Home Loan Bank 3130A9GS4 1.700%100,000 10/12/17 100,000.00 100,000.00 100,000.00 99,680.00 99,680.00
10/29/15 Federal Home Loan 3130A6NA1 1.400%100,000 10/29/19 100,000.00 100,000.00 100,000.00 99,754.00 99,754.00
12/09/16 Federal Home Loan 313371U79 3.125%200,000 12/11/20 205,522.10 205,522.10 1,357.12 204,164.98 203,578.00 203,578.00
08/03/16 Federal Home Loan 3130A8WW9 1.300%100,000 05/01/20 100,000.00 100,000.00 100,000.00 99,422.00 99,422.00
05/31/18 FHLB 3130AEBM1 2.750%100,000 05/10/21 99,892.00 99,892.00 99,892.00 102,637.00 102,637.00
05/31/17 US Treasury Note 912828XR6 1.750%300,000 05/31/22 299,765.63 299,765.63 299,765.63 300,198.00 300,198.00
03/15/16 Fannie Mae 3136G3CK9 1.520%300,000 06/15/20 299,745.00 299,745.00 299,745.00 298,680.00 298,680.00
07/28/16 Fannie Mae 3136G3J30 1.600%100,000 07/28/21 100,000.00 100,000.00 100,000.00 99,672.00 99,672.00
08/04/16 Fannie Mae 3136G3XV2 1.100%100,000 07/27/17 99,750.00 99,750.00 99,750.00 99,100.00 99,100.00
08/24/16 Fannie Mae 3135G0N66 1.400%100,000 08/24/20 99,981.00 99,981.00 99,981.00 99,411.00 99,411.00
08/25/16 Fannie Mae 3136G3Y33 1.400%300,000 08/25/21 300,000.00 300,000.00 300,000.00 297,330.00 297,330.00
10/27/15 Freddie Mac 3134G3F88 1.500%100,000 08/28/19 100,118.17 100,118.17 100,118.17 99,873.00 99,873.00
07/26/16 Freddie Mac 3134G9J40 1.000%200,000 04/26/19 200,000.00 200,000.00 200,000.00 - - -
04/03/19 Freddie Mac 3130AG7E9 1.000%200,000 04/03/20 - - 200,000.00 200,000.00 200,002.00 200,002.00
08/25/16 Freddie Mac 3134G95L7 1.600%200,000 08/25/21 200,000.00 200,000.00 200,000.00 198,896.00 198,896.00
09/20/16 Freddie Mac 3134GALQ5 1.300%100,000 09/20/19 100,000.00 100,000.00 100,000.00 99,817.00 99,817.00
09/30/16 Freddie Mac 3134GAHK3 1.600%200,000 09/30/21 199,800.00 199,800.00 199,800.00 198,424.00 198,424.00
07/27/17 Freddie Mac 3134GBZS4 2.150%300,000 04/27/22 300,000.00 300,000.00 300,000.00 300,060.00 300,060.00
3133EJ2R9 2.750%100,000 12/14/20 99,862.00 - 99,862.00 101,258.00 101,258.00
10/24/18 Federal Home Loan Bank 3130AFBQ9 2.750%200,000 10/24/19 200,002.00 - 200,002.00 200,312.00 200,312.00
05/16/19 Federal Home Loan Bank 3130AGDT9 2.500%200,000 11/16/20 - 200,000.00 200,000.00 200,108.00 200,108.00
12/09/16 Tenn Valley Authority 880591EL2 3.875%111,000 02/15/21 115,447.44 (2,276.00) 113,171.44 113,171.44 114,523.14 114,523.14
11/04/16 US Treasury Note 912828T67 1.250%500,000 10/31/21 499,765.63 499,765.63 499,765.63 494,435.00 494,435.00
06/14/16 Federal Home Loan Bank 3130A8EN9 1.640%100,000 06/14/21 100,000.00 100,000.00 100,000.00 99,062.00 99,062.00
05/27/16 Fannie Mae 3136G15S4 1.250%200,000 12/27/19 199,250.00 199,250.00 199,250.00 199,196.00 199,196.00
08/30/16 Fannie Mae 3136G35C5 1.400%100,000 08/25/21 100,000.00 100,000.00 100,000.00 99,402.00 99,402.00
08/25/16 Freddie Mac 3134G93Q8 1.680%200,000 08/25/21 200,000.00 200,000.00 200,000.00 198,048.00 198,048.00
09/14/17 Freddie Mac 3134GBC83 2.070%200,000 06/14/18 200,000.00 200,000.00 200,000.00 200,096.00 200,096.00
01/02/18 US Treasury Note 912828N89 1.375%500,000 01/31/21 493,115.86 493,115.86 493,115.86 496,485.00 496,485.00
5,611,000 5,255,573 4,953,433 400,000 201,357 5,452,030 5,443,067 3,498,174 1,901,247
Activity (Book Value)
Attachment A
B O AR D AGE N D A S TAF F R E P ORT
Agenda Item #3.
Meeting Date: July 24, 2019
Dis c ussion Item
To: G o verning Board Memb ers
F rom: G eneral Manager/C EO
Subject: S terling Natural R es o urc e C enter P rojec t Update
R E C O MME N D AT IO N:
T his item is fo r info rmatio n o nly, no actio n is recommended at this time.
B AC KGR O UN D / AN ALYS IS :
T he S terling Natural R esource C enter (S NR C ) will provide a valuable res o urc e for o ur community. T hrough the
p ro gres s ive design-build proc es s , Dis tric t s taff works alo ng s id e the d esign and cons truc tion team to d evelop
the fac ility in a s treamlined manner while p ulling from the d ivers e exp ertis e to ensure that the S NR C is a world
class p ro jec t.
T he Dis tric t c o ntinues to work with the c urrent outs id e fund ing s o urces on finalizing agreements and gathering
information fo r regular rep o rting. C urrently, the p ro jec t is fully fund ed through a low interes t S tate lo an, and
s uc ces s ful award o f P ropos itio n 1 and Urban G reening grants totaling o ver $8 million in funding. S taff continues
to p urs ue ad d itional fund ing oppo rtunities , includ ing s ales tax exc lus io ns and new p ark grants .
C o nstruc tio n is underway with effo rts fo c using o n the treatment facilities. T he found ational elements of the
Influent P ump S tation and Aeratio n Basins are und erway, with initial rebar in p lac e and c o nc rete p o urs
und erway. T hes e proc es s es will continue o ver the c o ming weeks , inc luding raising the c o nc rete walls o f the
influent pump s tatio n.
T he team is meeting with the various agencies regarding cooperative efforts and regulatory approvals necessary for
the project. Agencies currently coordinating in the S N R C include the S tate Water R esources C ontrol B oard
D ivision of D rinking Water, R egional Water Quality C ontrol B oard, San B ernardino C ounty F lood C ontrol, S an
B ernardino I nternational Airport Authority, S an B ernardino C ity U nified School D istrict, C ity of H ighland, C ity of
R edlands, and C ity of San B ernardino.
G iven the visibility o f the c o ns tructio n p ro gres s , the Dis tric t continues to provide regular updates through b o th
b ill ins erts and advertis ements in the Highland C o mmunity News . Additio nally, community members are
enc o uraged to view the c o nstruc tio n camera on the Dis trict's web s ite. T his is a s afe way for the c o mmunity to
have an inside lo o k at the effo rts underway to c o nstruc t the S terling Natural R esource C enter.
AG E N C Y G O ALS AN D OB J E C T IVE S :
G oal and O b jectives I - Implement Effec tive S o lutio ns T hrough Visionary Leadership
R ecommended b y:
Jo hn Mura
G eneral Manager/C EO
R espec tfully sub mitted:
Kelly Malloy
Direc tor o f S trategic S ervic es
G oal and O b jectives I - Implement Effec tive S o lutio ns T hrough Visionary Leadership
a) Identify O pportunities to O p timize Natural R esourc es
G o al and O bjec tives I V - P romo te P lanning, Maintenanc e and P res ervatio n o f Dis tric t R esources
b ) Enhanc e P lanning Efforts that R es p o nd to F uture Demands
F IS C AL IMPAC T
T here is no fis cal impac t as s o c iated with this item.
ATTACH M E N TS:
Description Type
SN RC Update Cover M e mo
STERLING NATURAL RESOURCE CENTER
NAVIGATING AGENCY APPROVALS
•Approvals relate to
•Design
•Construction
•Operation
14
Public Agencies
Requiring Approvals 60%
Approximate Treatment
Facility Design Status
CONSTRUCTION PROGRESS
Zero
Harm Concrete
Pour/ Monitoring
Excavation
Rebar
Placement
CONSTRUCTION UPDATES
B O AR D AGE N D A S TAF F R E P ORT
Agenda Item #4.
Meeting Date: July 24, 2019
Dis c ussion Item
To: G o verning Board Memb ers
F rom: G eneral Manager/C EO
Subject: C ons id er Do natio n of S urplus Vehic le to S anta C laus Inc.
R E C O MME N D AT IO N:
S taff recommends surp lus vehicle F ord F 350 unit #11 be donated to the lo cal no n-pro fit c haritab le
organization, S anta C laus, Inc .
B AC KGR O UN D / AN ALYS IS :
At the Bo ard Meeting o n June 26, 2019, the Board o f Directo rs approved four vehic les to be s o ld at auctio n
rather than the cus to mary proc ess of donating the vehic les to c haritable organizations . T he vehicles ’ age, mileage
and maintenanc e c o s ts were the driving fac to r in c hanging the p ro c es s from d o nation to auc tion.
S hortly after the June 26th Board Meeting, S anta C laus, Inc ., a well-res p ec ted local c haritable organization,
reached out to the Dis tric t fo r help . T hey explained that their main vehic le us ed to pick up large donated items
was s tolen, and without the appro p riate vehic le, their c haritable o p eratio n would s uffer.
T he Dis tric t has a relatio ns hip with S anta C laus , Inc . from vehicle donations in the pas t, and sup p o rts their
effo rts to help p rovid e for o ur community. T hanks to the Dis tric t’s p revious truck donation, S anta C laus , Inc .
was ab le to p ro vide gifts d uring the holidays o ver the pas t few years to less fo rtunate families.
Due to this current need, s taff recommends that the Board o f Direc tors rec onsider auc tioning one of the vehicles
s o that the Dis tric t may donate a vehicle to help this well-d es erved nonp ro fit o rganizatio n. T he vehic le b es t
s uited for their needs is Unit #11 – 1992 F o rd F -350 with 76,000 miles.
If approved fo r d o nation, fleet s taff will remo ve the arrow b o ard and crane that are c urrently attac hed to the
vehicle and prepare it for p ick-up.
R ecommended b y:
Jo hn Mura
G eneral Manager/C EO
R espec tfully sub mitted:
P atrick K. Milroy
O p erations Manager
AG E N C Y G O ALS AN D OB J E C T IVE S :
G o al and O bjec tives I I I - Deliver P ublic S ervic e with P urpose W hile Emb rac ing C ontinuo us G rowth
b ) S trive to P rovid e World C lass C usto mer R elations
R E VIE W B Y O T HE R S :
T his agenda item has been reviewed by O p eratio ns, Engineering and Ad minis tratio n.
F IS C AL IMPAC T
O p erations has p urc has ed replacement vehic les bas ed on the ap p roved bud get fo r F Y2018-19.
B O AR D AGE N D A S TAF F R E P ORT
Agenda Item #5.
Meeting Date: July 24, 2019
Dis c ussion Item
To: G o verning Board Memb ers
F rom: G eneral Manager/C EO
Subject: C ons id er R es o lutio n 2019.10 - P lac ement of Delinq uent Water and Was tewater C harges on the
C ounty of S an Bernardino 's Tax R oll fo r 2019-20
R E C O MME N D AT IO N:
S taff rec o mmend s that the Bo ard of Directo rs (Bo ard ) adopt R esolution 2019.10 autho rizing the p lac ement o f
delinq uent, unp aid water and wastewater c harges o n the C o unty of S an Bernard ino’s tax ro ll for 2019-20.
B AC KGR O UN D / AN ALYS IS :
C alifo rnia Water C ode S ection 31701.5 autho rizes the Dis tric t to plac e liens on real property fo r delinq uent
water and was tewater c harges, and to roll unpaid delinquent charge amounts and unpaid lien amounts o ver to the
S an Bernard ino C ounty pro p erty tax b ill. T his authority gives the Dis tric t a metho d to rec o ver unp aid charges
and fees related to utility s ervic es rendered.
Delinquent charges that are sub ject to b e rolled onto the p ro p erty tax bill includ e, but are not limited to, water
cons umption and related charges , wastewater c o llectio n and treatment servic es , late fees , interes t, and p enalties .
Every July, the Dis tric t determines which liens have no t been paid and p repares the appropriate materials to s end
to the S an Bernard ino C o unty for rec o very of d elinquent s ervic e c harges to the p ro perty o wner ’s tax bill. In
d o ing s o, the Distric t greatly enhances its ab ility to rec over unp aid charges in the upc o ming fis cal year.
AG E N C Y G O ALS AN D OB J E C T IVE S :
G o al and O bjec tives I I - Maintain a C ommitment to S us tainab ility, Transparenc y, and Ac c o untability
a) P rac tice Trans parent and Ac countab le F is cal Management
R E VIE W B Y O T HE R S :
T his agend a item has been reviewed by the F inanc e Department and F inanc e and Human R es o urc es
C ommittee.
R ecommended b y:
Jo hn Mura
G eneral Manager/C EO
R espec tfully sub mitted:
Brian Tomp kins
C hief F inancial O ffic er
F IS C AL IMPAC T
C ollec tion o f $39,680.31 in delinquent water and was tewater c harges.
ATTACH M E N TS:
Description Type
Resolution 2019.10 Resolutio n Letter
List o f Delinquent Water and Wastewater Acco unts Backup Material
East Valley Water District
Resolution 2019.10
Page 1 of 2
RESOLUTION 2019.10
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
OF THE EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, STATE
OF CALIFORNIA, ADDING DELINQUENT NON-PAID CHARGES TO ANNUAL
TAXES LEVIED UPON THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE CHARGES ARE
DELINQUENT AND UNPAID
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the East Valley Water District (the “District”) has
prepared a report and statement of those delinquent non-paid charges for water and other services
within the District which were delinquent and unpaid for sixty days or more on July 1, 2019; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the District has decided that said delinquent and
unpaid charges are to be included in the property tax levied on said property pursuant to California
Water Code Sections 31701 (e) and 31701.5 et seq.; and
THEREFORE, the Board of Directors of the District does hereby resolve, determine and
order as follows:
Section 1. That the report of the District’s delinquent and unpaid charges for water and
other services within the District which remain unpaid and delinquent for sixty days or more on
July 1, 2019 is hereby adopted and approved by said Board.
Section 2. That the unpaid and delinquent charges listed in said report for each parcel of
property are fixed at the amount listed in said report.
Section 3. That the Secretary shall file with the County Auditor of the County of San
Bernardino and the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Bernardino, in the time and manner
specified by the County Auditor and Board of Supervisors, a copy of such written report with a
statement endorsed hereon over the signature of the Secretary, that such a report has been finally
adopted and approved by the Board of Directors, and that the County Auditor shall enter the
amount of such charges against the respective lots of parcels of land as they appear on the current
assessment roll.
Section 4. That the County Tax Collector shall include the amount of charges on bills for
taxes levied against their respective lots and parcels of land and, therefore, the amount of such
unpaid and delinquent charges shall be collected at the same time and in the same manner by the
same person as, together with and not separately from, the general taxes, if any, for the District or
the County of San Bernardino and shall be delinquent at the same time, and thereafter be subject
to the same delinquency penalties.
East Valley Water District
Resolution 2019.10
Page 2 of 2
The foregoing Resolution was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the Board of Directors
of the East Valley Water District by motion made, duly seconded, and carried on July 24, 2019.
This Resolution shall take effect as of the 24th day of July 2019.
ADOPTED this 24th day of July 2019.
ROLL CALL:
Ayes:
Noes:
Abstain:
Absent:
Chris Carrillo
Board President
July 2 4, 2019
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of Resolution 2019.10
adopted by the Board of Directors of East Valley Water District at its Regular Meeting held July
24, 2019.
ATTEST:
_____________________________
John Mura
Secretary, Board of Directors
ACCOUNT NO.APN ORIGINAL
AMOUNT
0001-0059-02 0271-342-02-0000 52.41
0001-0213-00 0155-341-11-0000 134.14
0002-0132-15 0271-471-06-0000 158.32
0004-0097-12 1192-081-06-0000 2,305.22
0008-0816-08 1191-421-31-0000 79.40
0015-0249-10 0271-402-26-0000 431.30
0019-1508-05 1191-361-33-0000 235.97
0019-2298-07 1191-351-31-0000 142.28
0020-0105-06 1210-441-04-0000 144.86
0021-0068-05 0155-531-29-0000 207.13
0023-0082-03 0272-232-51-0000 232.79
0025-1887-12 1192-471-27-0000 91.72
0031-0117-08 0285-432-02-0000 58.17
0033-0007-11 0285-532-11-0000 400.86
0034-0009-06 0272-132-20-0000 12,435.63
0034-0030-04 0272-123-32-0000 249.59
0037-0063-05 1192-352-44-0000 69.01
0042-0051-07 0272-271-14-0000 195.71
0042-0127-11 0272-331-01-0000 262.24
0042-0185-08 0155-141-08-0000 279.21
0043-0028-04 0285-313-05-0000 49.14
0043-0052-06 0285-262-02-0000 351.18
0043-0112-05 0285-312-15-0000 325.12
0044-0187-05 0272-212-16-0000 155.96
0052-0063-03 0273-291-07-0000 258.32
0053-0267-09 1191-081-69-0000 265.53
0054-1493-18 1191-451-44-0000 47.05
0054-1537-11 1191-501-68-0000 105.05
0055-1245-01 1210-461-14-0000 1,689.97
0063-0311-09 1191-271-70-0000 113.71
0073-0011-01 0273-131-10-0000 80.67
0073-0135-04 0273-141-49-0000 347.81
0082-0071-22 0278-081-01-0000 278.00
0082-0155-02 0278-252-16-0000 282.29
0083-0006-02 1192-481-48-0000 241.95
The following properties all have recorded liens in the amount of the delinquencies
shown and are to be turned over to the Office of the Tax Collector, County of San
Bernardino, to be added to the Respective Property Tax Bills
*2019-20 County Tax Roll*
Page 1 of 3
ACCOUNT NO.APN ORIGINAL
AMOUNT
The following properties all have recorded liens in the amount of the delinquencies
shown and are to be turned over to the Office of the Tax Collector, County of San
Bernardino, to be added to the Respective Property Tax Bills
*2019-20 County Tax Roll*
0084-0971-06 1191-411-23-0000 93.78
0084-1150-00 1191-411-15-0000 1,723.87
0084-1233-13 1191-361-22-0000 278.86
0084-1585-03 1191-371-48-0000 71.15
0091-2037-09 1191-121-19-0000 756.70
0094-0200-08 0278-296-07-0000 164.71
0103-0113-08 1192-071-42-0000 114.35
0103-0124-12 1192-071-21-0000 278.25
0105-2985-03 1201-451-14-0000 170.01
0111-0082-05 1192-261-19-0000 143.11
0111-0213-08 1192-251-30-0000 683.02
0111-0231-07 1192-251-14-0000 492.81
0111-0267-10 1192-531-39-0000 51.26
0112-0076-02 0279-062-04-0000 105.80
0112-0129-04 0279-063-06-0000 388.49
0113-0271-11 0279-074-12-0000 119.51
0122-1601-08 0288-551-01-0000 202.55
0132-0076-12 0285-851-32-0000 60.50
0132-0156-12 0285-833-05-0000 133.18
0132-0156-14 0285-833-05-0000 58.22
0135-0163-01 0285-861-20-0000 69.23
0140-0061-00 1200-441-02-0000 114.14
0154-2152-03 0273-112-24-0000 179.89
0154-2574-07 0273-202-26-0000 198.29
0154-2696-06 0273-122-52-0000 76.81
0155-0004-05 1192-491-39-0000 48.36
0156-0596-13 1200-411-10-0000 190.52
0161-0088-03 1210-131-13-0000 147.40
0164-0078-07 1210-231-69-0000 129.85
0164-2695-04 1201-431-08-0000 168.96
0164-2803-01 1210-031-47-0000 132.45
Subtotal (Pages 2-3)*30,303.74$
* - This amount was reported during the July 9, 2019 Finance & Human Resources
Committee.
In addition, the following delinquencies have been identified and should also be
included with the final list.
Page 2 of 3
ACCOUNT NO.APN ORIGINAL
AMOUNT
The following properties all have recorded liens in the amount of the delinquencies
shown and are to be turned over to the Office of the Tax Collector, County of San
Bernardino, to be added to the Respective Property Tax Bills
*2019-20 County Tax Roll*
0001-0038-01 0271-351-13-0000 54.84
0007-0155-11 0271-425-01-0000 63.96
0008-0029-05 1191-294-24-0000 685.50
0015-0266-04 0271-486-01-0000 175.85
0034-0061-07 0272-111-05-0000 72.99
0035-0073-14 0285-461-13-0000 138.88
0036-0067-14 1191-282-04-0000 29.19
0037-0179-08 0278-102-09-0000 104.81
0054-0780-00 1191-411-68-0000 108.97
0063-0173-03 1191-221-57-0000 53.46
0071-0047-06 0273-362-09-0000 90.45
0071-0187-04 0273-252-10-0000 126.63
0072-0244-11 0273-153-18-0000 2,731.21
0074-2453-06 1200-371-03-0000 32.30
0091-2040-04 1191-121-23-0000 137.90
0094-0109-08 0278-243-01-0000 265.08
0094-0175-02 0278-295-26-0000 110.60
0111-0014-03 1192-531-05-0000 398.14
0113-0206-13 0279-091-04-0000 62.66
0114-0062-03 0279-173-27-0000 246.70
0115-0146-05 0285-992-31-0000 75.09
0116-1204-22 1191-501-27-0000 474.14
0133-0069-01 1199-191-21-0000 137.26
0134-0011-08 1200-471-22-0000 144.22
0135-0126-03 1200-011-10-0000 78.86
0140-0146-09 1200-231-68-0000 174.60
0043-0046-13 0285-263-22-0000 57.21
0017-0096-09 0285-513-09-0000 29.40
0023-0041-04 0272-241-09-0000 173.88
0036-0073-13 1191-282-07-0000 153.17
0054-1829-02 1191-451-25-0000 97.08
0101-0126-08 1192-101-51-0000 141.84
0101-0200-00 1192-121-46-0000 753.40
0101-0201-00 1192-121-47-0000 1,043.76
0111-0284-11 1192-271-31-0000 152.54
Subtotal (Page 3)9,376.57$
Total 39,680.31$
Page 3 of 3
B O AR D AGE N D A S TAF F R E P ORT
Agenda Item #6.
Meeting Date: July 24, 2019
Dis c ussion Item
To: G o verning Board Memb ers
F rom: G eneral Manager/C EO
Subject: C ons id er R es o lutio n 2019.11 - C ertifying Addend um to the F inal Environmental Impac t R eport for
the S terling Natural R esource C enter
R E C O MME N D AT IO N:
S taff rec o mmend s that the Bo ard of Directo rs adopt R esolution 2019.11 certifying the Ad d endum to the F inal
Environmental Impact R eport (EI R ) fo r the S terling Natural R es ourc e C enter.
B AC KGR O UN D / AN ALYS IS :
O n Marc h 23, 2016, the Eas t Valley Water Distric t (E VW D) Bo ard of Direc tors ad o p ted R esolutio n 2016.01
certifying the Environmental Impact R epo rt fo r the S terling Natural R esource C enter (S NR C ) in its ro le as a
res p o ns ible agenc y. T he c ertified 2016 EI R is attached hereto as Exhibit “A” to this doc ument. S inc e the
certification of the 2016 EI R , EVW D has taken o ver as lead agenc y for the S NR C P roject and has mo d ified the
S NR C pro ject to allo w: 1) consistent and es s ential s econd ary s to rage o f tertiary-treated rec yc led water in the
o riginally p ro p o s ed detention p ond s to enable the S NR C to perform its wastewater treatment o peratio ns , 2) us e
mo d ific ations to the Emergency O perations C enter fac ility to pro vide additional s upport for was tewater
treatment o p erations ; 3) incorporation of a new parc el of land adjac ent to the originally p roposed lo c ation, and 4)
mo d ific ations to the S NR C to ac cept up to 670,000 gallo ns o f food was te p er week.
As a res ult o f thes e p ro p o s ed mo dific ations , EVW D has p rep ared an Ad d endum p urs uant to (C alifo rnia
Enviro nmental Q uality Act) C EQ A G uid elines S ectio n 15164 evaluating the po tential for any o f the propos ed
mo d ific ations to result in new s ignificant impac ts no t previous ly identified in the 2016 E I R . T his Addend um
(attached hereto as Exhibit ”B”) d emons trates the imp acts to the environment as a result o f the P rojec t
mo d ific ations are c o nsistent with and wo uld not create sub s tantial new o r inc reased impacts b eyond those whic h
were evaluated in the 2016 E I R . T he pro p o s ed P ro ject mo d ific ations des cribed in the Ad d end um p ro pose no
s ubstantial c hanges req uiring majo r revis ions of the previous EI R d ue to the involvement of new s ignificant
enviro nmental effects . F urther, the propo s ed mo d ific ations d es c rib ed in the Ad d end um do no t c reate a
s ubstantial inc rease in the s everity of previo us ly id entified s ignific ant effects . No new information of sub s tantial
imp o rtanc e indic ates the S NR C P ro jec t wo uld have one or mo re s ignific ant effec ts not disc ussed in the
p revious E I R nor are s ignific ant effects previo us ly examined s ubs tantially more severe than d es c rib ed in the
p revious EI R . No new mitigatio n was identified in this Add endum that wo uld red uc e imp ac ts to the enviro nment
evaluated in the 2016 EIR . No new mitigatio n wo uld be required as a res ult of implementing the S NR C P rojec t
mo d ific ations . P urs uant to C E Q A G uidelines S ec tions 15162 and 15164 and the P rojec t mo d ification findings
d es cribed in this Add endum, this Addendum is the ap p ro p riate C EQ A d oc ument. No sub s eq uent EI R is
req uired.
R ecommended b y:
Jo hn Mura
G eneral Manager/C EO
R espec tfully sub mitted:
Jeff No elte
Direc tor o f Engineering and O p eratio ns
req uired.
AG E N C Y G O ALS AN D OB J E C T IVE S :
G oal and O b jectives I - Implement Effec tive S o lutio ns T hrough Visionary Leadership
a) Identify O pportunities to O p timize Natural R esourc es
G o al and O bjec tives I V - P romo te P lanning, Maintenanc e and P res ervatio n o f Dis tric t R esources
a) Develop P ro jec ts and P ro grams to Ens ure S afe and R eliable S ervices
R E VIE W B Y O T HE R S :
T his agenda item has been reviewed by the executive management team.
F IS C AL IMPAC T
T his p ro jec t is ap p roved in the F Y 2019-20 C apital I mprovement P ro gram in the amount of $60,000,000.
ATTACH M E N TS:
Description Type
Exhibit "A" F IN AL Certified SNRC E IR Exhibit
Exhibit "B" Addendum to E IR Exhibit
Resolution 2019.11 Resolutio n Letter
Draft E IR S N R C Exhibit
Prepared for
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water
District
March 2016
Final Environmental Impact Report
SCH # 2015101058
STERLING NATURAL RESOURCE CENTER
EXHIBIT "A"
626 Wilshire Boulevard
Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90017
213.599.4300
www.esassoc.com
Irvine
Oakland
Orlando
Palm Springs
Petaluma
Portland
Sacramento
San Diego
San Francisco
Seattle
Tampa
Woodland Hills
150005
STERLING NATURAL RESOURCE CENTER
Final Environmental Impact Report
SCH # 2015101058
March 2016Prepared for
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water
District
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Sterling Natural Resource Center Project
Final Environmental Impact Report
Chapters 1 through 8 and Appendices A through G are part of the Draft Environmental
Impact Report (Under separate cover)
Page
Final Environmental Impact Report
9. Introduction .....................................................................................................................9-1
10. Comment Letters ......................................................................................................... 10-1
Letter USFWS: US Fish and Wildlife Service
Letter CDFW: California Department of Fish and Wildlife
Letter Colton: City of Colton
Letter Highland: City of Highland
Letter Rialto: City of Rialto
Letter RPU: City of Riverside Public Utilities Department
Letter IVDA: Inland Valley Development Agency
Letter MWD: Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD)
Letter OCWD: Orange County Water District
Letter SBCDPW: San Bernardino County Department of Public Works
Letter SBCRP: San Bernardino County Regional Parks
Letter SBMWD: San Bernardino Municipal Water District (including GEI Memorandum)
Letter SBIAA: San Bernardino International Airport Authority
Letter EHL: Endangered Habitats League
Letter CBD: Center for Biological Diversity/ San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society/
San Gorgonio chapter of Sierra Club
Letter LAFCO: Local Agency Formation Commission for San Bernardino County
Letter MACA: Mentone Area Community Association
Letter SEJA: SoCal Environmental Justice Alliance
Letter Serrano: Anthony Serrano
Letter Yauger: Fred Yauger
Letter Serrano 2: Anthony Serrano 2
Letter Serrano Emails: Anthony Serrano Emails
Sterling Natural Resource Center Project i ESA / 150005
Final EIR February 2016
Acronyms Used in this Report
11. Responses to Comments ........................................................................................... 11-1
Comment Letter – U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) ........................................ 11-2
Comment Letter - California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) ...................... 11-12
Comment Letter – City of Colton (Colton) ................................................................... 11-29
Comment Letter – City of Highland (Highland) ........................................................... 11-30
Comment Letter - City of Rialto (Rialto) ...................................................................... 11-32
Comment Letter – City of Riverside Public Utilities Department (RPU) ..................... 11-33
Comment Letter – Inland Valley Development Agency (IVDA) .................................. 11-40
Comment Letter – Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) ........... 11-43
Comment Letter - Orange County Water District (OCWD) ......................................... 11-44
Comment Letter – San Bernardino County Department of Public Works (SBCDPW) 11-52
Comment Letter – San Bernardino County Regional Parks (SBCRP) ....................... 11-61
Comment Letter – San Bernardino Municipal Water District (SBMWD) ..................... 11-62
Comment Letter – San Bernardino International Airport Authority (SBIAA) ............... 11-78
Comment Letter – Endangered Habitats League (EHL) ............................................. 11-80
Comment Letter - Center for Biological Diversity / San Bernardino Valley Audubon
Society/ San Gorgonio Chapter of Sierra Club (CBD) .......................................... 11-83
Comment Letter – Local Agency Formation Commission for San Bernardino County
(LAFCO) ................................................................................................................ 11-97
Comment Letter – Mentone Area Community Association (MACA) ......................... 11-106
Comment Letter – SoCal Environmental Justice Alliance (SEJA) ............................ 11-107
Comment Letter – Anthony Serrano (Serrano) ......................................................... 11-135
Comment Letter – Fred Yauger ................................................................................. 11-137
Comment Letter – Anthony Serrano 2 (Serrano 2) ................................................... 11-138
Comment Letter – Anthony Serrano Emails.............................................................. 11-141
12. Clarifications and Modifications ................................................................................ 12-1
12.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 12-1
12.2 Clarification and Modifications .......................................................................... 12-2
Pages ES-7 through ES-23 (Executive Summary Table) ............................................. 12-3
Page 1-2 ...................................................................................................................... 12-22
Page 1-5 ...................................................................................................................... 12-22
Page 2-11 .................................................................................................................... 12-24
Page 2-16 .................................................................................................................... 12-24
Page 2-33 .................................................................................................................... 12-24
Page 2-34 .................................................................................................................... 12-26
Page 3.3-13 ................................................................................................................. 12-27
Page 3.3-14 ................................................................................................................. 12-27
Page 3.3-27 ................................................................................................................. 12-27
Page 3.3-28 ................................................................................................................. 12-28
Page 3.4-23 ................................................................................................................. 12-28
Page 3.4-32 ................................................................................................................. 12-28
Page 3.4-45 ................................................................................................................. 12-30
Page 3.4-54 ................................................................................................................. 12-30
Sterling Natural Resource Center Project ii ESA / 150005
Final EIR February 2016
Acronyms Used in this Report
12. Clarifications and Modifications (cont.)
Page 3.4-55 ................................................................................................................. 12-31
Page 3.4-56 ................................................................................................................. 12-32
Page 3.4-57 ................................................................................................................. 12-33
Page 3.4-62 ................................................................................................................. 12-34
Page 3.7-13 ................................................................................................................. 12-34
Page 3.14-4 ................................................................................................................. 12-35
Page 3.14-5 ................................................................................................................. 12-35
Page 3.15-7 ................................................................................................................. 12-36
Page 4-16 .................................................................................................................... 12-36
Page 6-7 ...................................................................................................................... 12-36
Page 3.3-23 ................................................................................................................. 12-37
Page 3.3-24 ................................................................................................................. 12-37
Page 3.3-25 ................................................................................................................. 12-37
Page 3.4-60 ................................................................................................................. 12-37
Page 3.11-19 ............................................................................................................... 12-38
Page 3.15-8 ................................................................................................................. 12-39
Chapter 8 – Added References ................................................................................... 12-39
Appendix A: Notice of Preparation and Comments Added Letter ............................. 12-40
Appendices
A Revised Notice of Preparation and Comments Table
B Revised Air Quality Data
E Revised GHG Emissions Data
H Updated Reduced Discharge Study Report
I Geoscience Technical Memoranda
J An Update to the Recycled Water Feasibility Study 2015
K Attachments Received with Comment Letters
L Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Figures
11-1 Species Occurrence Data ........................................................................................... 13
11-2 City Creek Aerial Image .............................................................................................. 16
11-3 City Creek Proposed Discharge .................................................................................. 35
11-4 Redlands Basins Proposed Discharge [figure # on figure is 15-6] ............................. 37
11-5 Conceptual Stream Infiltration ..................................................................................... 45
11-6 Chino Basin Depth to Groundwater Contours ............................................................ 49
Tables
10-1 Comment Letters Received ..................................................................................... 10-1
11-1 Basin Plan Objectives and Ambient Water Quality ............................................... 11-71
Sterling Natural Resource Center Project iii ESA / 150005
Final EIR February 2016
CHAPTER 9
Introduction
This Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) has been prepared in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as amended (Public Resources Code Section
21000 et seq.) and CEQA Guidelines (California Administrative Code Section 15000 et seq.). The
Final EIR incorporates, by reference, the Draft EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2015101058)
prepared by San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District (Valley District) for the Sterling
Natural Resource Center (project), as it was originally published and the following chapters,
which include revisions made to the Draft EIR.
9.1 CEQA Requirements
Before Valley District may approve the proposed project, it must certify that the Final EIR: a) has
been completed in compliance with CEQA; b) was presented to the Valley District Board of
Directors who reviewed and considered it prior to approving the project; and c) reflects Valley
District’s independent judgment and analysis.
The Draft EIR, together with the Revisions to the Draft EIR, Response To Comment, and
Appendices, constitute the Final EIR for the proposed project. Section 15132 of the Guidelines
for California Environmental Quality Act (commonly referred to as the CEQA Guidelines)
specifies the following:
The final EIR shall consist of:
(a) The Draft EIR or a revision of the draft.
(b) Comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR either verbatim or in summary.
(c) A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR.
(d) The responses of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in the
review and consultation process.
(e) Any other information added by the Lead Agency.
Sterling Natural Resource Center 9-1 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
9. Introduction
Section 15004 of the CEQA Guidelines states that before the approval 1 of any project subject
to CEQA, the Lead Agency must consider the final environmental document, which in this
case is the Final EIR.
This Final EIR has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of CEQA. This Final EIR for the
Sterling Natural Resource Center project presents the following chapters as a continuation of
those included in the Draft EIR:
• Chapter 9: Introduction and CEQA process
• Chapter 10: A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the
Draft EIR, and the written comments received on the Draft EIR
• Chapter 11: Written responses to each comment identified in Chapter 10
• Chapter 12: Clarifications and modifications made to the Draft EIR in Response To
Comment received or initiated by the Lead Agency
• Modified or added Appendices
9.2 CEQA Process
Public Participation Process
Notice of Preparation and Public Scoping
In accordance with Section 15082 of the CEQA Guidelines, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an
EIR was prepared and circulated for review by applicable local, state and federal agencies and the
public. The 30-day project scoping period, which began with the distribution of the NOP on
October 16, 2015, remained open through November 16, 2015. Two public scoping meetings
were held on October 29, 2015 at the Valley District office and November 5, 2015 at the East
Valley Water District office. The NOP provided the public and interested public agencies with
the opportunity to review the proposed project and to provide comments or concerns on the scope
and content of the environmental review document including: the range of actions; alternatives;
mitigation measures, and significant effects to be analyzed in depth in the EIR.
Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR
The Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Draft EIR was posted on December 17, 2015 with the
County Clerk in San Bernardino County. The Draft EIR was circulated to federal, state, and local
agencies and interested parties requesting a copy of the Draft EIR. Copies of the Draft EIR were
made available to the public at the following locations:
• Sterling Natural Resource Center Web Site (http://www.sterlingnrc.com)
• SBVMWD Headquarters, 380 E. Vanderbilt Way, San Bernardino, CA 92408
1 The word “approval” is defined by Section 15352 of the CEQA Guidelines to mean “the decision by a public
agency which commits the agency to a definite course of action in regard to a project intended to be carried out by
any person…”
Sterling Natural Resource Center 9-2 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
9. Introduction
Sterling Natural Resource Center 9-3 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
Norman F Feldheym Central Library, 555 West 6th Street, San Bernardino, CA 92410
Highland Sam J. Ricardo Library & Environmental Learning Center, 7863 Central
Avenue, Highland, CA 92346
The Draft EIR was circulated for public review from December 17, 2015 through February 1,
2016. During this period, Valley District held two public meetings to provide interested persons
with an opportunity to comment orally or in writing on the Draft EIR and the project. The public
meetings were held at the Valley District office in San Bernardino on January 14, 2016 and the
East Valley Water District office in Highland on January 19, 2016. No comments were offered
from the audience at either public meeting.
Evaluation and Response to Comment
CEQA Guidelines Section 15088 requires Valley District, as the Lead Agency, to evaluate
comments on environmental issues received from parties that have reviewed the Draft EIR and to
prepare a written response. The written responses to commenting public agencies shall be
provided at least ten (10) days prior to the certification of the Draft EIR (CEQA Guidelines
§15088(b)).
Final EIR Certification and Approval
As the Lead Agency, Valley District provided the Final EIR to commenters on March 4, 2016 and
made it available for review at the following locations:
Sterling Natural Resource Center Web Site (http://www.sterlingnrc.com)
SBVMWD Headquarters, 380 E. Vanderbilt Way, San Bernardino, CA 92408
Norman F Feldheym Central Library, 555 West 6th Street, San Bernardino, CA 92410
Highland Sam J. Ricardo Library & Environmental Learning Center, 7863 Central
Avenue, Highland, CA 92346
Prior to considering the project for approval, Valley District, as the Lead Agency, will review and
consider the information presented in the Final EIR and will certify that the Final EIR:
(a) has been completed in compliance with CEQA;
(b) has been presented to the Board of Directors as the decision-making body for the Lead
Agency, which reviewed and considered it prior to approving the project; and
(c) reflects Valley District’s independent judgment and analysis.
Once the Final EIR is certified, Valley District’s Board of Directors may proceed to consider
project approval (CEQA Guidelines §15090). Prior to approving the proposed project, Valley
District must make written findings and adopt statements of overriding considerations for each
unmitigated significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR in accordance with
Sections 15091 and 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines.
9. Introduction
Sterling Natural Resource Center 9-4 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
Notice of Determination
Pursuant to Section 15094 of the CEQA Guidelines, Valley District will file a Notice of
Determination (NOD) with the Office of Planning and Research and San Bernardino County
Clerk of the Board within five working days after project approval.
CHAPTER 10
Comment Letters
The Draft EIR for the Sterling Natural Resource Center Project (project) was circulated for public
review for 45 days (December 17, 2015 through February 1, 2016) in accordance with the
requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15105(a). Valley District received twenty two
comments letters and emails during the public review period, which are listed in Table 10-1 and
included within this chapter. The letters have been marked with brackets that delineate comments
pertaining to environmental issues and the information and analysis contained in the Draft EIR.
Responses to such comments are provided in Chapter 11.
TABLE 10-1
COMMENT LETTERS RECEIVED
Comment
Letter Commenting Agency Type of Agency Date of Comment
USFW U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Federal February 3, 2016
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife State February 1, 2016
Colton City of Colton Local February 1, 2016
HIghland City of Highland Local February 1, 2016
Rialto City of Rialto Local February 4, 2016
RPU City of Riverside Public Utilities Department Local February 1, 2016
IVDA Inland Valley Development Agency Local January 29, 2016
MWD Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Local January 28, 2016
OCWD Orange County Water District Local February 1, 2016
SBCDPW San Bernardino County Department of Public Works Local February 1, 2016
SBCRP San Bernardino County Regional Parks Local January 4, 2016
SBMWD San Bernardino Municipal W ater District Local February 1, 2016
SBIAA San Bernardino International Airport Authority Local January 29, 2016
EHL Endangered Habitats League Non-Governmental
Organization (NGO) January 28, 2016
CBD
SBVAS SC
Center for Biological Diversity/ San Bernardino Valley Audubon
Society/ San Gorgonio chapter of Sierra Club NGO February 1, 2016
LAFCO Local Agency Formation Commission for San Bernardino County NGO February 1, 2016
MACA Mentone Area Community Association NGO February 1, 2016
SEJA SoCal Environmental Justice Alliance NGO February 1, 2016
Serrano Anthony Serrano 1 Individual February 1, 2016
Yauger Fred Yauger Individual January 19, 2016
Serrano-2 Anthony Serrano 2 Individual February 25, 2016
Serrano
Emails Anthony Serrano Emails Individual February 10, 2016
Sterling Natural Resource Center 10-1 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
Comment Letter USFW
Comment Letter USFW
Comment Letter USFW
Comment Letter USFW
Comment Letter USFW
Comment Letter USFW
Comment Letter USFW
Comment Letter USFW
Comment Letter USFW
Comment Letter CDFW
Comment Letter CDFW
Comment Letter CDFW
Comment Letter CDFW
Comment Letter CDFW
Comment Letter CDFW
Comment Letter CDFW
From:Tom Barnes
To:Ashok Dhingra (Adhingra@eastvalley.org); janenn Usher (j.usher@mpglaw.com) (j.usher@mpglaw.com); Elie,
Steve (S.Elie@MPGLAW.com); Jean Cihigoyenetche (JeanCihigoyenetche@cgclaw.com); Heather Dyer
(heatherd@sbvmwd.com); Camille Castillo
Subject:FW: Draft EIR for the Sterling Natural Resource Center
Date:Monday, February 01, 2016 5:00:43 PM
From: Victor Ortiz [mailto:VOrtiz@ci.colton.ca.us]
Sent: Monday, February 01, 2016 4:59 PM
To: Tom Barnes
Cc: Bill Smith; Mark Tomich; David Kolk; Reggie Torres
Subject: Draft EIR for the Sterling Natural Resource Center
Dear Tom,
The City of Colton appreciate the opportunity of giving us a chance to comments for the Draft EIR for
the Sterling Natural Resource Center. Below is our comments:
- Since the project will divert 6 MGD of water from RIX that is owned and operated by Cities
of Colton and San Bernardino, is there any impact to the operation of the RIX plant? We
understand that there might be an impact to the habitat of the Santa Ana sucker fish.
Please feel free to contact me if you need additional information.
Thanks,
Victor Ortiz, P.E.
Engineering Superintendent/City Engineer
Public Works Department
City of Colton
160 South 10th Street
Colton, CA 92324
e-mail: vortiz@coltonca.gov
Tel. (909) 370-5065
(909) 514-4210 – direct
Fax (909) 370-5072
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication with its contents may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. It is solely for the use of the
intended recipient(s). Unauthorized interception, review, use or disclosure is prohibited and may violate applicable laws including the Electronic Communications
Privacy Act. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the communication.
Comment Letter Colton
Comment Letter Highland
Comment Letter Highland
017106\0001\14434330.1
Michael T. Fife
Attorney at Law
805.882.1453 tel
805.965.4333 fax
MFife@bhfs.com
1020 State Street
Santa Barbara, CA 93101-2711
main 805.963.7000
bhfs.com Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP
February 4, 2016
VIA E-MAIL TBARNES@ESASSOC.COM
San Bernardino Valley Municipal W ater District
c/o Tom Barnes, Environmental Science Associates
626 W ilshire Boulevard, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90017
RE:DEIR Comments -Sterling Natural Resource Center
Dear Mr. Barnes:
Our office has received a copy of the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Sterling Natural Resource
Center.We represent the City of Rialto with respect to its wastewater change petition currently pending
before the State Water Resources Control Board (SW RCB),and submit these comments on behalf of
Rialto.
Recycled water is a critical resource in the face of continuing drought and ever increasing restrictions on
the availability of imported water. The Santa Ana W atershed has been at the forefront of water recycling in
the State and its efforts have been lauded by numerous agencies including the SWRCB. Both the local
region as well as the State as a whole have a strong interest in promoting the greatest amount of water
recycling as possible.
The DEIR examines a water recycling project that will result in the cessation of discharge of approximately
6 MGD of treated wastewater to the Santa Ana River (SAR)from the City of San Bernardino’s Rapid
Infiltration and Extraction (RIX) facility.The DEIR analysis finds that the cessation of 6 MGD will not cause
harm to biological resources of the SAR. The DEIR further finds that cessation of discharges of even as
much as 12 MGD will not necessarily harm biological resources of the SAR.The DEIR identifies four
Rialto wells as potential sources of supplemental water that can be used to mitigate any unforeseen
impacts.
Rialto’s wastewater change petition also requests the ability to cease the discharge of 6 MGD to the SAR.
Rialto supports the analysis of the Sterling DEIR as it is consistent with our analysis to the extent that at
least 12 MGD, if not more, of wastewater can stop being discharged to the SAR without causing harm to
biological (and other) resources. Rialto also concurs in the finding that management tools exist, such as the
use of Rialto’s wells, that can mitigate potential unforeseen impacts.
Please further describe the interaction between the groundwater underlying the four Rialto wells
identified in the DEIR and the SAR, in order to confirm whether the water pumped by these wells is
supplemental water rather than part of the baseflow of the SAR.
Comment Letter Rialto
Tom Barnes
February 4, 2016
Page 2
017106\0001\14434330.1
Rialto looks forward to continuing to work with the parties in the Santa Ana Watershed to develop an
approach acceptable to all parties to best promote water recycling in the region.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the DEIR.
Sincerely,
Michael T. Fife
MXF:olr
cc:Robert Eisenbeisz, PE –Director of Engineering, City of Rialto
Comment Letter Rialto
Comment Letter RPU
Comment Letter RPU
Comment Letter RPU
Inland Valley Development Agency
January 29, 2016
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District
C/O Tom Barnes, Environmental Science Associated
626 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90017
RE: STERLING NATURAL RESOURCE CENTER DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT
Dear Mr. Barnes:
This letter is in response the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) on the proposed
Sterling Natural Resource Center (SNRC) dated December, 2015. We understand that the San
Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District (SBVMWD) is serving as lead agency for
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and that the project is
proposed to be located at North Del Rosa Drive between 5th Street and 6th Street in the City of
Highland.
The Inland Valley Development Agency (IVDA) is a regional joint powers authority
charged with the effective reuse of the former Norton Air Force Base in San Bernardino,
California. This project includes a public-private partnership and industrial park known as
Alliance-California which is home to major Fortune 100 and 500 companies, as well as a 14,000
acre base reuse project area surrounding the former Base. The IVDA is also the successor in
interest to a number of former United States Air Force facilities, systems, and utilities.
The proposed SNRC is located approximately 1.4 miles north of IVDA-owned property.
As an adjacent owner and operator, IVDA staff has reviewed the DEIR and would like to
provide the following comments and suggestions.
1) In general, the DEIR seems to address environmental impacts and mitigation from
more of a programmatic view, while what is being proposed is a site-specific
development. More detail and analysis should be included to identify specific
mitigation measures and management programs. Additional explanation should be
provided to demonstrate that the objective can be met by the proposed project. In
several areas such as biological, stormwater, geotechnical, and flood hazards, specific
mitigation measures and some of the referenced technical studies are being deferred.
2) Specific financial and operational analyses should be provided regarding the costs for
construction and on-going maintenance and operation of the facility. Cost estimates
for mitigation measures and related costs should be considered in that analysis.
1601 East Third Street, Suite 100 • San Bernardino, CA 92408 • (909) 382-4100 • FAX (909) 382-4106
www.sbdairport.com
Comment Letter IVDA
SBVMWD SNRC
Page 2
January 29, 2016
3) Please provide more detail as to what odor control systems will be implemented and
the expected efficiency of those systems. Assessment of potential residual odors
should be provided.
4) Additional descriptions and analyses regarding specific locations of proposed well
sites designed to capture percolated water should be provided in relation to potential
recharge sites. The DEIR references refurbishment of wells in Colton to offset losses
from the RIX facility, but it does not address this project component in the analysis
sections.
5) Additional noise and vibration information should be provided including a
background noise measurement and information regarding anticipated construction
and operational noise levels and mitigation. Operational emissions data should
include assessment of pump stations, refitted wells, and generators, along with
emissions inventory. Construction traffic trips should be considered in the traffic
analyses.
6) IVDA has developed design and engineering plans for some of the adjacent street
sections which address installation of additional utility infrastructure. The DEIR
proposes several new pipelines and interconnections. This information will be made
available to you to facilitate coordination and to help avoid potential utility conflicts.
Staff is available to discuss the project and potential solutions more specifically as the
project is further developed. If you have any questions or require any additional information,
please do not hesitate to contact me at (909) 382-4100.
Sincerely,
INLAND VALLEY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Micha Burrows
Executive Director
Comment Letter IVDA
Comment Letter MWD
Mr. Tom Barnes
Feb ruary 1, 2016
Page 2 of 5
OCWD supports water recycling . OCWD , however, is concerned that projects to recycle
water, such as the proposed project, in combination with other projects , may remove water
from the Santa Ana River at a rate that leaves insufficient water in the Santa Ana River to
support riparian habitat and beneficial uses in Prado Bas in and other portions of the water
bodies upstream of Prado Basin .
The Prado Basin Management Zone (PBMZ) is one of the largest riparian ecosystems in
southern Ca li forn ia, covering over 4 ,000 acres . The PBMZ is home to threatened and
endangered species ("T/E spec ies") that rely on healthy and v igorous riparian habitat.
Recognizing the unique im portance of this area , the Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa
Ana River Bas in established the PBMZ and designated the beneficial uses of Warm
Freshwater Habitat (WARM ). Wildlife Habitat (WILD), and Rare , Threatened or Endangered
Species (RARE). Additional Beneficial Uses identified in the PBMZ in the Regional Board 's
Bas in Plan include Agricultural Supply (AGR), Groundwater Recharge (GWR), Water Contact
Recreation (REC 1), and Non-contact Water Recreation (REC2). OCWD is concerned that the
proposed project, in combination w ith other projects, may remove water from the Santa Ana
River at a rate that leaves insufficient water in the river to support the beneficial uses in Prado
Basin identified in the Bas in P lan .
Baseflow i n the Santa Ana River and its tributaries and shallow groundwater recharged by
baseflow support this ecosystem . Reliable baseflow is especially critical during the growing
season when T/E species are present. In recent years , there has been a significant decline in
the amount of baseflow entering the PBMZ (a decline of more than 60 ,000 acre-feet per year
since 2005, as documented in the Santa Ana River Watermaster Annual Report dated April 30 ,
2015).
Vegetation comprising the riparian habitat in the PBMZ is dominated by native trees such as
black willow and Freemont cottonwood . These species are ph reatophytes , whi ch are plants
that rely on direct access to flowing water or shallow groundwater for survival. Reductions in
flowing water and lowering of the groundwater table can adverse ly affect the health and vigor
of phreatophytes and , in turn , degrade riparian habitat for T/E species and beneficial uses in
the PBMZ.
OCWD has recently observed and documented areas in the PBMZ where riparian habitat has
degraded in recent years , potentially as a result of declines in baseflow and associated
groundwate r levels . In August 2015 , OCWD commiss ioned a team of plant and restoration
ecologists and water resource engineers to prepare an assessment of Prado Basin . A report
prepared by Stetson Engineers , dated October 26 , 2015 and included as Attachment 1 ,
presents the results of this assessment. Several areas in the PBMZ were observed where
riparian habitat s howed signs of distress , such as leaf senescence, branch sacrifice , and
crown dieback. A number of dead Fremont cottonwood t rees and black willow d ieback were
observed. The team f ound ind ications of potential conversion from obligate
Comment Letter OCWD
Mr. Tom Barnes
February 1, 2016
Page 3 of 5
(phreatophytic) riparian habitat to riparian scrub in some areas . Measurements were taken of
surface flow and depth to groundwater. Hydrologic conditions , including inadequate surface
flow and depressed groundwater levels , appeared unsuitable to support healthy and vigorous
riparian habitat. These observations are consistent with lowering of groundwater levels and
reductions in surface flows .
Further reductions in baseflow, such as that which would result from the proposed project,
could potentially cause commensurate reductions in water supply to riparian habitat resulting
in further degradation and conversion to drier scrub habitat. Current and foreseeable future
actions in the upper Santa Ana River watershed are anticipated to cumulatively and
significantly reduce baseflow entering the PBMZ and lower groundwater levels even further .
The information developed in this assessment is not conclusive but it is highly suggestive and
supportive that further reductions in recycled water discharges have the potential to harm
riparian habitat in the PBMZ.
Regarding future flow rates in the Santa Ana River , estimates of future flow rates have been
prepared by the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority (SAWPA) and other entities . It is
important to note that with respect to riparian habitat health , the seasonal aspect of the flow
rate must be considered , not just the annual flow rate . Riparian plants need water in the hot
summer months . If there is plenty of water in the winter but not enough in the summer, the
riparian vegetation is at risk. Wildermuth Environmental , Inc. (WEI) created a 50-year daily
inflow hydrograph at the Prado Basin for estimated year 2021 and year 2071 conditions using
the Waste Load Application Model (WLAM). This work builds on the 2020 Prado Basin
hydrograph generated for SAWPA in 2009 and more recently for the OCWD in 2012. The
modeled hydrograph developed by the WLAM incorporates future land use conditions , flood
control , recycled water discharge, and water conservation practices in the watershed tributary
to the Prado Basin . The attached report (included as Attachment 2) from WEI dated January
24, 2014 provides background information on the WLAM , a summary of the 2021 and 2071
planning assumptions , and presents the Prado Basin daily inflow hydrographs for 2021 and
2071 conditions . It is important to note that the 2071 condition is so named since it has
assumed 2071 land use , but this condition could occur in approximately 15 to 30 years .
The significance of the WEI January 24 , 2014 model report is that it illustrates how low surface
water flow into Prado Basin is estimated to decrease in the future . As shown in the figure
below, identified as Figure 7 in the WEI model report , the estimated summer-time flow into
Prado Basin is in the range of 15 to 18 cubic feet per second (cfs). This value includes the
total inflow to Prado Basin , including from the Santa Ana River, Chino Creek, Mill Creek , and
Temescal Creek. In this estimated condition , the minimum baseflow requirements for the 1969
Santa Ana River Judgment are satisfied , but the summer-time flow rate is likely too low to
support riparian habitat in Prado Basin .
Comment Letter OCWD
Mr. Tom Barnes
February 1, 2016
Page 4 of 5
For illustrative purposes, if it is assumed the water demand of riparian habitat in Prado Basin is
4.11 acre feet per acre per year and this water demand occurs during the warmest six months
of the year, then the monthly water demand in the warmest six months is 0.685 feet per month
(per unit area). Assuming there are 6,000 acres of riparian habitat in Prado Basin, then during
the warmest six months the total water demand is 4,110 acre feet per month. If the inflow to
Prado Basin is 15 cubic feet per second, within the range estimated in the WEI report (as
shown in the figure below), then the estimated surface flow into Prado Basin is 894 acre feet
(assuming 30 days per month). The value of the water demand of 4,110 acre feet per month
is much greater than the surface inflow of 894 acre feet per month. While some of the deficit
could be made up by shallow groundwater, shallow depth to groundwater is maintained to
some degree by surface inflow (see Attachment 1). Additionally, there are on-going
management activities in the Chino Basin that can affect groundwater levels in Prado Basin
(see Attachment 1). Suffice to say, this example demonstrates the potential for insufficient
quantities of water to sustain riparian habitat during the warmest parts of the year.
Source: Wildermuth Environmental, Inc., January 24, 2014
Comment Letter OCWD
Mr. Tom Barnes
February 1, 2016
Page 5 of 5
The cumulative analysis for the proposed project is very important, since the proposed project
needs to be evaluated in light of the other proposed projects in the watershed . The following
projects , at a min imum , should be included in the cumulative impact assessment with respect
to reduced flow in the Santa Ana River or its tributaries and impacts to riparian habitat:
• Projects in the proposed Upper Santa Ana River Habitat Conservation Plan
• Inland Empire Utilities Agency recycled water projects
• Chino Basin Watermaster Recharge Master Plan (including stormwater diversion
projects)
• County of San Bernardino Flood Control District stormwater diversion projects
• Riverside County Flood Control District stormwater d iversion projects
• City of Corona recycled water projects and stormwater diversion projects, including
diversions of stormwater from Temescal Creek and its tributaries
• City of R iverside recycled water projects
• City of Colton recycled water projects
• City of Rialto recycled water projects
• City of San Bernardino recycled water projects , including the Clean Water Factory
project
• San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water D istrict stormwater diversion projects
• San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District/Western Municipal Water Districts
stormwater diversion projects , including water conservation at Seven Oaks Dam
• Western Riverside County Regional Wastewater Authority Water Recycling Project
(Wastewater Change Petition WW-0067)
• Eastern Municipal Water District recycled water projects, including reduced discharges
to T emescal Creek
• Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District recycled water projects
Thank you for the opportunity to submit these comments .
Michael R. Markus, P.E ., D .WRE, BCEE, F .ASCE
General Manager
Attachments: Preliminary Assessment of Hydrologic Conditions Related to Riparian Habitat
Health and Vigor in the Prado Basin Management Zone , Stetson Engineers Inc .,
October 26, 2015
Prado Basin Da ily Discharge Estimates for 2021 and 2071 Using The Wasteload
Allocation Model , Wildermuth Environmental Inc., January 24 , 2014
Comment Letter OCWD
Comment Letter SBCDPW
Comment Letter SBCDPW
Comment Letter SBCDPW
Comment Letter SBCDPW
Comment Letter SBCRP
Comment Letter SBMWD
Comment Letter SBMWD
Comment Letter SBMWD
Comment Letter SBMWD
Comment Letter SBMWD
Comment Letter SBMWD
Comment Letter SBMWD
Comment Letter SBMWD
Comment Letter SBMWD
Attachment to SBMWD
Attachment to SBMWD
Attachment to SBMWD
Attachment to SBMWD
Attachment to SBMWD
Attachment to SBMWD
i i SBD San Bernardino International Airport
January 29, 2016
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District
C/O Tom Barnes, Environmental Science Associated
626 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90017
RE: Sterling Natural Resource Center DEIR
Dear Mr. Barnes:
This letter is in response the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) on the proposed Sterling
Natural Resource Center (SNRC) located at North Del Rosa Drive between 5th Street and East 6th
Street in the City of Highland and the associated effluent conveyances and discharge locations. We
understand that the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District (SBVMWD) is serving as lead
agency for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
The San Bernardino International Airport Authority (SBIAA) operates the San Bernardino
International Airport, a commercial airport certificated by the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA). The Airport is a 24-hour operation serving various types of aeronautical activities including
air cargo, law enforcement air support, and essential US Forest Service aerial fire response.
As a commercial airport, there are specific requirements set forth through the FAA, Public Law, and
State of California guidelines that SBIAA maintains compliance with in order to ensure the safety
of aircraft operations on and around the Airport. The proposed SNRC is located approximately 1.4
miles north of the Airport and within the Airport Influence Area where low-flying aircraft routinely
operate. The SBIAA requests that the Valley District carefully consider the potential impacts of the
proposed SNRC development and specifically address the concerns set forth in FAA Advisory
Circulars 150/5200-33B, 150/5200-34, as well as Section 503 of the Wendell H. Ford Aviation
Investment and Reform Act for the 21' Century (Public Law 106-181), and State guidelines
including the provisions set forth in the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook.
The FAA requires SBIAA, under its Commercial Operating Certificate, to ensure lighting does not
negatively affect the operation of aircraft. Specific positioning or shielding of exterior lighting is
required in order to prevent negatively impacting the night vision of pilots. In the DEIR, under
Impact 3.8-4, the exterior building lighting is identified as having no impact to the Airport. SBIAA
requests that SBVMWD provide clarification on the guidelines that will be followed for the design
of exterior lighting, and provide SBIAA an opportunity to review and approve lighting components
involving height, position, type, direction of aim, and light intensity.
1601 East Third Street, Suite 100 • San Bernardino, CA 92408 • (909) 382-4100 • FAX (909) 382-4106
www.sbdairport.com
Comment Letter SBIAA
Sincerely,
Valley District
Page 2
January 29, 2016
Impact 3.11-5 states that the proposed SNRC will be minimally impacted by noise generated from
low flying aircraft as the site would not be located near either end of the Runway. Because the
SNRC is proposed to be located within the Airport Influence Area, low-flying aircraft, including
helicopters, law enforcement, and fire response aircraft currently operate at or above 500 feet in the
surrounding areas of the Airport and within the vicinity of the SNRC. As background noise readings
were not provided in the DEIR for the project, we request that the DEIR acknowledge such over
flights (including single event noise spikes) in the background noise condition of the site.
The SNRC treatment plant and associated water features can provide wildlife with ideal locations
for feeding, loafing, reproduction, and escape that can produce substantial attractions for various
wildlife species with the potential to pose hazards to aircraft operations. The SBIAA requests
information on how SBVMWD plans to mitigate wildlife attractants and standing water conditions
at the proposed SNRC in conformance with the requirements set forth in FAA Advisory Circulars
150/5200-33B, 150/5200-34, and Public Law 106-81.
The DEIR identifies construction of the SNRC site as having no impact to the San Bernardino
Kangaroo Rat. However, special attention to ensure protection of this species and the Santa Ana
Woolly Star during the construction/upgrades of the Santa Ana River Pipeline conveyance is
required. Further information on proposed pipelines residing on or adjacent to SBIAA owned
property is required, as access to the buried pipelines has been identified to take place in close
proximity to Kangaroo Rat and Santa Ana River Woolly Star habitats within an established
Conservation Management Area and would necessitate coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
SBVMWD should ensure that both construction activities and the SNRC facility operation adhere to
requirements set forth by the FAA, Public Law, and the State of California for the continued safety
of pilots operating in the vicinity of the San Bernardino International Airport. For more information
on these requirements, please reference the following: FAA Advisory Circular 150/5200-33B; FAA
Advisory Circular 150/5200-34; Section 503 of the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and
Reform Act for the 21st Century (Public Law 106-181); and the California Land Use Planning
Handbook. SBIAA requests that SBVMWD take into consideration and address the aforementioned
concerns as they relate to the proposed design and construction of the SNRC.
Mark Gibbs
Director of Aviation
San Bernardino International Airport Authority
Comment Letter SBIAA
8424 SANTA M O NICA B LVD SUITE A 592 LOS A NGELES CA 90069-4267 WWW.EHLEAGUE.ORG PHONE 213.804.2750
E NDANGERED H ABITATS L EAGUE
D EDICATED TO E COSYSTEM P ROTECTION AND S USTAINABLE L AND U SE
ENDANGERED HABITATS L EAGUE
January 28, 2016
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District
c/o Tom Barnes, Environmental Science Associates
626 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90017
tbarnes@esassoc.com
RE: Draft Environmental Impact Report for Sterling Natural Resource Center
Dear Mr. Barnes:
Endangered Habitats League (EHL) appreciates the opportunity to comment on
this project. For your reference, EHL is Southern California’s only regional conservation
group, with a focus on the upper Santa Ana River and its tributaries.
This project proposes to remove water now discharged into the Santa Ana River
system from the RIX facility and to use it for groundwater recharge at one of several
possible locations. It would remove about 20% of the in-stream flows now being
discharged from RIX and which currently support the endangered Santa Ana sucker
(Sucker). A number of compensatory mitigation measures are proposed to enhance or
create habitat for the Sucker.
While the project’s impacts and mitigations are supposed to fit into the larger
Upper Santa Ana River Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), the project could also move
forward absent the HCP. As a supporter of the HCP process, EHL is very concerned
about piecemeal projects that may undermine or even preclude HCP success. For this
reason, it is vital that the EIR for the Sterling facility properly assess the individual and
cumulative impacts of the project.
Endangered Habitat League has the following concerns over the adequacy of the
DEIR:
1. The water needed for Sucker survival and recovery within the Santa Ana River
has not been defined in terms of quantity, quality, and flow regime. Absent this
essential information, the impacts of loss of water from the Sterling project – as
well as the cumulative impacts of other foreseeable diversions – cannot be
adequately assessed. Without knowing how much in-stream water the Sucker
needs, there is no way to know if an impact is significant or can be mitigated.
Comment Letter EHL
The EIR must identify and disclose the water that should to remain in-stream for
the Sucker and compare those parameters (quantity, quality, and timing of flows)
to the effects of Sterling and other cumulative diversions. Special consideration
should be given to flows required to flush accumulated fine sediments, which are
detrimental to the Sucker. On the basis of this analysis, the project should retain
ample flows in the system, and fully mitigate the impacts of diversion.
2. The suite of recharge sites should be analyzed and compared not only with
reduction of impacts in mind but also with an eye to enhancement and restoration
opportunities. The ultimate choice should reflect this complete analysis.
Also, while the proposed mitigation measures could indeed benefit the Sucker,
ultimate success for the Sucker and other species depends upon a cooperative, regional
approach among public agencies. Specifically, lands needed for enhancement and
restoration should be made available for these purposes even if the mitigating agency is
not the landowning agency. Thus, public agencies should make their lands available –
with appropriate monetary compensation, of course – as mitigation for the Sterling
project and other components of the Upper Santa Ana River HCP.
Thank you for considering our views. Please retain EHL on all mailing and
distribution lists for this project.
Yours truly,
Dan Silver
Executive Director
cc: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Calif. Dept. of Fish and Wildlife
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Regional Water Quality Control Board
Interested parties
Comment Letter EHL
San Bernardino Valley
Audubon Society
__
via electronic mail and USPS
February 1, 2016
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District
c/o Tom Barnes, Environmental Science Associates
626 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90017
tbarnes@esassoc.com
Re: Comment on Draft Environmental Impact Report for Sterling Natural Resource
Center
Dear Mr Barnes:
These comments are submitted to the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District (the
“District”) on behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity (the “Center”), San Bernardino
Valley Audubon Society and the San Gorgonio Chapter of the Sierra Club regarding the Draft
Environmental Impact Report (“DEIR”) for the Sterling Natural Resource Center (“SNRC”).
The project is anticipated to result in unmitigable significant impacts to the federally threatened
Santa Ana sucker and will ultimately decrease the water flow of the Santa Ana River by six (6)
million gallons per day (“MGD”). This flow is critical to sustaining the current population of the
Santa Ana sucker in its namesake river. Our groups support sustainable management of local
water resources that includes the preservation of native flora and fauna and their habitats. For
the reasons detailed below, we urge substantial revisions to the DEIR to better analyze, mitigate
or avoid the Project’s significant environmental impacts.
The Center is a non-profit, public interest environmental organization dedicated to the protection
of native species and their habitats through science, policy, and environmental law. The Center
has 50,186 members and over 900,000 online activists, including 31,862 members and 111,877
online activists in California. The Center has worked for many years to protect imperiled plants
and wildlife, open space, air and water quality, and overall quality of life for people and wildlife
in San Bernardino County.
The San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society (“SBVAS”) is a local chapter of the National
Audubon Society, a 501(c) 3 corporation. The SBVAS chapter area covers almost all of
Comment Letter CBD/Audobon/Sierra
Comments on the Sterling Natural Resource Center DEIR
2/1/16
Page 2 of 8
Riverside and San Bernardino Counties and includes the project area. SBVAS has about 2,000
members. Part of the chapter’s mission is to preserve habitat in the area, not just for birds, but
for other wildlife, and to maintain the quality of life in and around San Bernardino County.
The Sierra Club is a national nonprofit organization of over 732,000 members dedicated to
exploring, enjoying, and protecting the wild places of the earth; to practicing and promoting the
responsible use of the earth’s ecosystems and resources; to educating and enlisting humanity to
protect and restore the quality of the natural and human environment; and to using all lawful
means to carry out these objectives. Over 193,500 Sierra Club members reside in California.
The San Gorgonio Chapter of the Sierra Club focuses on issues within the inland empire,
including San Bernardino County.
While the diversion of wastewater from release into the Santa Ana River to the proposed SNRC
tertiary water treatment plant may provide a benefit to biological resources by ultimately
assuring continuous flows to the occupied habitat of the federally threatened Santa Ana sucker
fish, the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) analysis of the project is inadequate.
We are not therefore, able to determine if this release will be helpful or harmful and the District
cannot move forward in approving this project based upon this inadequate and incomplete DEIR.
In addition to the direct impacts that the diversion will cause, we are also concerned about the
impacts on biological resources of installing new pipes and outlet structures to existing
infiltration basins (Twin Creeks and Redlands) and to a new location in City Creek; the
activation of wells to provide water into the Rialto Ditch to when the outflow in that ditch is too
warm to sustain Santa Ana sucker fish; and re-purposing an existing pipe to bring reclaimed
water to the Rialto Ditch.
A. Inadequate and Deferred Surveys
Analysis of biological resources has been impermissibly deferred and the one “survey” that was
conducted is wholly inadequate. Even though there is an area of high biodiversity with an
exceptional number of protected species - 27 special-status plant species and 44 special-status
wildlife species acknowledged in the DEIR - there has not been a sufficient biological surveys
completed and only one questionable focused study for a protected species.
The only on-the-ground effort to analyze biological resources was a “reconnaissance-level
survey” that did not include any data for 9 months of the year and did not even cover the entire
project area: “in areas that were not accessible at the time of the survey, visual observations were
made from the nearest accessible locations.” (DEIR at p. 3.4-1.) The only discussion of the
highly imperiled San Bernardino Merriam’s kangaroo rat, known to be present in the area and
protected as an endangered species across its entire range is as follows: “Surveys for San
Bernardino [Merriam’s] kangaroo rat were conducted by a permitted biologist on the SNRC site
and resulted in negative findings of the species due to the lack of suitable habitat” (DEIR at 3.4-
21). There is no further information provided on this survey, the surveyor’s report is not
attached to or cited in the DEIR, and there is no indication of whether the survey was conducted
in accordance with USFWS survey protocol for this species. The survey protocol for the San
Comment Letter CBD/Audobon/Sierra
Comments on the Sterling Natural Resource Center DEIR
2/1/16
Page 3 of 8
Bernardino Merriam’s kangaroo rat requires an intensive five consecutive nights of trapping,
conducted when the animal is active aboveground at night, and preferably during a new moon
phase. Without any information as to the survey we cannot determine if the District’s efforts
were in compliance with the protocol, but given the acknowledged, extremely-close proximity of
known populations, it appears highly likely that the methodology employed is not acceptable.
The District did not conduct any focused studies for burrowing owls, for the remaining sixteen
rare plants that have medium to high potential to occur on the project site (at pg. 3.4-12), or the
thirty-five rare animals that the DEIR lists as having medium to high potential to occur on the
project site (at pg. 3.4-20). All such surveys are to be deferred to prior to construction even
though the project impacts federally designated critical habitat for the endangered San
Bernardino Merriam’s kangaroo rat in City Creek and possibly along the mainstem of the Santa
Ana River. Lacking the basic facts on the existing resources, an adequate CEQA evaluation of
impacts is impossible and the District cannot demonstrate, as required by CEQA, that its
conclusions are supported by substantial fact.
B. Rare Animals
i. Southwestern Willow Flycatcher
The DEIR fails to mention southwestern willow flycatcher federally designated critical habitat
which occurs in the proposed project area at the proposed SBWRP bypass area. This oversight
in of itself makes for a legally insufficient DEIR.
The DEIR fails to quantitatively estimate the decrease in southwestern willow flycatcher habitat
due to the decrease of 6MGD into the Santa Ana River. While we believe the impact from the
decrease could be offset by some of the proposed mitigation measures, without a quantitative
estimate of impact, clear goals for mitigation cannot be developed or implemented to truly offset
the impact.
ii. San Bernardino Merriam’s Kangaroo Rat
The proposed project will impact San Bernardino Merriam’s kangaroo rat habitat in numerous
places, yet the identification of the impact remains vague or unidentified. For example, all of the
City Creek outlet structure alternative locations are within federally designated critical habitat.
The permanent impact of the structure themselves are proposed to be 900 square feet (at 2-15),
yet there is no estimate of temporary impacts. Although temporary, these impacts may be
extensive and profound.
While the DEIR recognizes that “Construction of discharge facilities within City Creek and the
introduction of perennial flow would result in a shift from RAFSS [Riversidean Alluvial Fan
Sage Scrub] to Southern Cottonwood-Willow Riparian Forest, displacing sensitive wildlife,”
mitigation measure Bio-2 relies on surveys for the kangaroo rat that will be performed in the
future, prior to construction, so it is unclear how many animals would be impacted and the
amount of critical habitat impacted. Bio-2 also proposes mitigating impacts through
Comment Letter CBD/Audobon/Sierra
Comments on the Sterling Natural Resource Center DEIR
2/1/16
Page 4 of 8
conservation measures and compensation requirements that remain unidentified, and rely totally
on the Biological Assessments submitted to the wildlife agencies through Section 7 and 2081
consultations. Unfortunately that approach fails to provide the public and decision makers with
adequate data and analysis of impacts and it also removes the opportunity for interested public to
comment on the proposed conservation measures and compensation that the agencies require.
If perennial flows in City Creek are established as part of the project, we agree that the cover of
RAFSS would decrease while some type of riparian forest could develop depending on the
amount of water released and the infiltration rate. The DEIR does not attempt to quantify this
change of decreasing RAFSS and increasing riparian habitat or the impacts and benefits to rare
and endangered species. The San Bernardino Merriam’s kangaroo rat relies extensively on the
RAFSS community, especially early and mid-successional stages. The conversion of existing
RAFSS to riparian will decrease the amount of available habitat (including critical habitat) for
the San Bernardino Merriam’s kangaroo rat. We recognize that the creation of riparian habitat
would benefit other species including riparian obligate sensitive avian species. However the
DEIR fails to estimate the decrease in RAFSS and the increase in riparian that would result from
the implementation of the project. It is likely that a decrease in RAFSS would require
mitigation, but in the absence of an analysis in the DEIR, it remains unclear. The DEIR needs to
fully address the anticipated decrease in RAFSS and the increase in riparian habitat in City Creek
and if mitigation will need to be implemented to offset impacts, particularly to the decrease in
RAFSS.
At pg. 2-24, the DEIR discusses that some segments of the 36-inch Santa Ana River Pipeline
that extends from Alabama Street to the SBWRP may have been removed and would need to be
replaced (in addition to lining the existing segments of the pipeline for the purposes of the
proposed project. While not discussed in the impact sections, any segments that needed to be
replaced likely lie within federally designated critical habitat for the San Bernardino kangaroo
rat. Again, the DEIR falls short of identifying and quantifying potential impacts to critical
habitat and ways to avoid, minimize or mitigate the impacts.
iii. Santa Ana Sucker Fish
We agree with the determination in the DEIR that the project will result in significant and
unmitigable impacts to Santa Ana sucker due ultimately to the removal of 6MGD of water from
the Santa Ana River, which is 18-21 percent of the 28.5 MGD currently discharged into the
Santa Ana River at the Rapid Infiltration and Extraction facility (RIX) (at pg. 3.4-48).
To determine if this impact can be mitigated, there needs to be much more clarity on the
operation of the wells – when they would be activated, how much water etc. To partially mitigate
the Santa Ana sucker impacts, the DEIR proposes to refurbish existing wells close to the Rialto
Channel, pump groundwater and release it into the Rialto Channel. As the DEIR states “The
wells will enable groundwater to be used as supplemental water, to mitigate the potential direct
and indirect effects of reduced Santa Ana River flow. The groundwater would be conveyed into
the Santa Ana River as needed to maintain minimum flows established by the wildlife agencies.
Comment Letter CBD/Audobon/Sierra
Comments on the Sterling Natural Resource Center DEIR
2/1/16
Page 5 of 8
The wells would be operated by Valley District” (at pg.2-27). It is unclear what the minimum
flows going into the Santa Ana River would be.
iv. Gambel’s watercress
The DEIR fails to examine the opportunity for re-introduction of Gambel’s watercress back into
the Santa Ana River watershed from which it has been extirpated. Based on the extreme rarity of
Gambel’s watercress (at pg. 3.4-17), this species would greatly benefit from having more than a
single location on the planet. Because so much of the aquatic habitat would be highly managed,
re-introduction and management to prevent hybridization would be a great benefit. We strongly
suggest that re-introduction be part of the strategy for recovering this very rare species.
v. Arroyo Chub
Table 3.4-4 identify the arroyo chub as having only medium potential for impact on the project
site, but that seems wrong since the arroyo chub is sympatric with the Santa Ana sucker in the
Santa Ana River. Please clarify.
C. Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (HMMP) Mitigations Vague
While a HMMP is not actually provided, measures are provided that could be incorporated into
the HMMP. The generalized language of the measures however is inadequate to assure effective
mitigation. Some of the proposed measures that need clarity include:
SAS-1 – Microhabitat Enhancements are proposed that entail using placement of large
boulders or woody debris to increase scour and pool formation. While we support
increasing scour and pool formation in the Santa Ana sucker habitat, previous efforts at
using gabions did not result in the desired scour and pool formation – the gabions sunk
into the sand. This measure may be more effective if the boulders/woody debris is placed
at appropriate places in the river, but absent a fully developed HMMP or more clarity in
the measure, the DEIR leaves great room for implementation of ineffective mitigation by
putting the boulders/woody debris in ineffective locations. In addition, it is unclear that
Flood Control Districts would even allow the installation of boulders/woody debris, due
to the boulders/woody debris’ potential to back up water, cause flooding or cause
downstream damage to existing infrastructure. These issues must be clarified and
addressed in the EIR.
SAS-2 – We support aquatic non-native predator control for all the benefits reduced
predation provides the Santa Ana sucker and other native aquatic fauna. However it is
unclear why the control is limited to “the upstream reach of the affected river segment”
(at pg. 3.4-52). What defines the “upstream reach” and “affected river segment”. While
we recognize that species do move downstream, so there is value in treating the upstream
reach, predators also move upstream. A comprehensive measure would include
treatments both upstream and downstream.
Comment Letter CBD/Audobon/Sierra
Comments on the Sterling Natural Resource Center DEIR
2/1/16
Page 6 of 8
SAS-3 - We support management for exotic weeds for all the benefits reduced exotic
vegetation provides the habitat for both native plants and animals. However, weed
abatement must be systematically implemented from the top of the watershed to the
bottom; otherwise exotic plants will continually re-infest downstream reaches resulting in
an ongoing weed problem and an unending source of temporary, but illusory, mitigation
credits for permanent development impacts. The measure needs to identify a goal for
exotic reduction and triggers for action if exotics reappear.
SAS-5 – We support keeping the water cool enough in the Rialto Channel so that Santa
Ana sucker and other aquatic fauna can use it as habitat. However, water temperature
and quantity should both be triggers for augmentation in Rialto Channel. Revegetation of
the channel above Agua Mansa to provide shade in the channel (and remove the hardened
surface) would not only provide additional habitat but also reduce heating of the pumped
groundwater.
SAS-6 – For well over a decade, we have supported establishing additional populations
of Santa Ana sucker in the Santa Ana River, due to the limited habitat available to the
existing population and its vulnerability to catastrophic events. This measure needs to
clarify the goals and success criteria of the translocation plan. The translocated fish
should not be considered an experimental population under the ESA.
D. Biological Assessment Missing
Bio-1 commits to seeking state and federal Endangered Species Act permits from the wildlife
agencies. A Biological Assessment will be prepared as part of that process (at ES-9). In our
experience, Biological Assessments are typically provided, often as an appendix as part of the
DEIR. In this case a Biological Assessment would provide more specific data on the existing
resources with potential for impact and clear avoidance, minimization and, if necessary
mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate the impact.
E. Unclear Project Description
The text of the DEIR describes different alignments of Treated Water Conveyance System
pipelines to City Creek and Figure 2-5 includes a proposed pipeline that traverses City Creek at
5th/Greenspot road and continues east to some undisclosed terminus. We could not locate a
description of this pipeline or an impact evaluation of it.
F. Cumulative Impacts
The results of the cumulative impacts analysis indicates a catastrophic decline in water for the
Santa Ana sucker, other aquatic organisms and the riparian corridor along the Santa Ana river
downstream of RIX. In coordination with the Cities of San Bernardino for their Clean Water
Comment Letter CBD/Audobon/Sierra
Comments on the Sterling Natural Resource Center DEIR
2/1/16
Page 7 of 8
Factory Project proposal1, for the City of Rialto, the District needs to carefully consider the need
to divert water from the Rialto channel through the three separate projects. The channel supplies
most of the surface flow upon which the Santa Ana sucker relies and the cumulative impacts of
these projects could be catastrophic. We agree with the conclusion the District reaches in the
DEIR that, if all of the three projects move forward, the Santa Ana sucker faces extirpation from
its namesake river. We urge the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District and the Cities
to safeguard against this extirpation, and the state and federal wildlife agencies to prevent this
extirpation as they implement protections for the Santa Ana sucker.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on this proposed Project. We look forward
to working to assure that the Project and environmental review conforms to the requirements of
state law and to assure that all significant impacts to the environment are fully analyzed,
mitigated or avoided. In light of the significant, unavoidable environmental impacts to the Santa
Ana sucker fish, the incomplete biological surveys of the project area that are a prerequisite to
adequate impact analysis, we strongly urge the DEIR be vastly improved and recirculated.
Please do not hesitate to contact the Center with any questions at the number listed below.
Please keep us on the “interested public” list with regards to any notifications about this project.
Sincerely,
April Rose Sommer
Staff Attorney
Center for Biological Diversity
Ileene Anderson
Senior Scientist
Center for Biological Diversity
8033 Sunset Blvd., #447
Los Angeles, CA 90046
323-654-5943
ianderson@biologicaldiversity.org
Drew Feldman
Conservation Chair
San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society
1 http://www.usbr.gov/lc/socal/envdocs/2014/SBMWD%20Clean%20Water%20Factory%20NOP.pdf
Comment Letter CBD/Audobon/Sierra
Comments on the Sterling Natural Resource Center DEIR
2/1/16
Page 8 of 8
Kim Floyd
Conservation Chair
San Gorgonio Chapter
Sierra Club
cc (via email):
Heather Dyer, SBVMWD, heatherd@sbvmwd.com
Karin Cleary-Rose, USFWS karin_cleary-rose@fws.gov
Kai Palenscar, USFWS kai_palenscar@fws.gov
Rosemary Burk, USFWS rosemary_burk@fws.gov
Jeff Brandt, CDFW jeff.Brandt@wildlife.ca.gov
Comment Letter CBD/Audobon/Sierra
Comment Letter LAFCO
Comment Letter LAFCO
Comment Letter LAFCO
Comment Letter LAFCO
February 1, 2016
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District
c/o Tom Barnes, Environmental Science Associates
626 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90017
(sent by email only to: tbarnes@esassoc.com )
SUBJECT: STERLING NATURAL RESOURCE CENTER ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT
Dear Mr. Barnes:
The following comments are being submitted on behalf of the Mentone Area
Community Association (MACA) pertaining to the subject wastewater treatment
plant facility proposed to be constructed in the City of Highland, and which is
anticipated to provide sewerage system capacity to areas within the East Valley
Water District (EVWD) and other areas covered by the San Bernardino Valley
Municipal Water District (SBVMWD) service area.
1.It has been suggested by the City of Highland, EVWD as well as the
developer for the proposed Harmony Specific Plan project, that sewer service
will be made available to the Harmony project in conjunction with the
development and construction of the subject Sterling Natural Resource
Center wastewater treatment plant project. However, there is no mention of
the proposed SBVMWD wastewater treatment plant project in the Harmony
Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) document which is in it’s
final review stages. Therefore a lack of consistency exists between the two
documents which needs to be corrected in advance of the distribution of the
Final EIR documents for both projects.
2.Additionally, and although the City of Highland indicates there has been
significant discussion with EVWD and the Harmony project developer over at
least the last years time, the outfall sewer which will be necessary to connect
the proposed Harmony Specific Plan project to the proposed Sterling Natural
Resources Center wastewater treatment plant has not been identified in
either project’s Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
3.Much of the unincorporated area of Mentone, which is located within the
Sphere of Influence for the City of Redlands and within the SBVMWD service
area, is without sewerage service availability and instead is utilizing individual
Comment Letter MACA
2
septic systems for wastewater disposal. The Mentone Area Community
Association (MACA) is interested in having an appropriate service review
conducted and having sewer service made available in conjunction with the
proposed Sterling Natural Resources Center project and the outfall facilities
that would need to be constructed to provide service to the Harmony Specific
Plan area. The Harmony project was previously also located in the City of
Redlands Sphere of Influence before the area was annexed into the City of
Highland through the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) in 2000.
Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the Sterling Hatural Resources
Center project. If there are any questions concerning this correspondence,
please call me at (cell:909-556-1988) or email to steve_rogers@verizon.net.
Comment Letter MACA
BLUM|COLLINS LLP
Aon Center
707 Wilshire Boulevard
Suite 4880
Los Angeles, California
90017
213.572.0400 phone
213.572.0401 fax
February 1, 2016
Valley District
c/o Tom Barnes
Environmental Science Associates
626 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Tbarnes@esassoc.com
Via Email & U.S. Mail
Re: Comments on Sterling Natural Resource Center EIR
Dear Mr. Barnes and Valley District:
This letter is to serve you with comments on behalf of the SoCal Environmental Justice
Alliance (“SEJA”) regarding the planned Sterling Natural Resource Center (“SNRC”)
and its Environmental Impact Report (“the EIR” or “the DEIR”). SEJA believes the
document is deeply flawed with regard to its project description, analysis of impacts,
analysis of alternatives, and analysis of cumulative impacts. We believe you should
redraft and recirculate the document after these flaws have been remedied. Thank you
for this opportunity to comment. We provide our comments in the order they come up
relative to the document.
Project Description Discussion
The Project Description (at 2-5 to 2-6) leaves much to be desired. First of all, it does not
describe how much if any water will be going to City Creek, the East Twin Creek
Spreading Grounds, or the Redlands Basin. It appears from your map (at Figure 2-7f)
that all three will be used, as you have depicted facilities going to each, as well as to the
Santa Ana River (“SAR”) Pipeline. It is impossible to tell how much water you intend to
divert to each location and thus to determine what the impacts will be. This leaves the
public, as well as your agency, as well as other responsible agencies, in the dark. It also
is impossible to tell why you have designated SBVMWD (“Valley District”) as lead
agency when the project will serve East Valley Water District (“EVWD”) customers and
will be built on EVWD land.
At 2-24 you indicate (we think for the first time) that some (although you do not say how
much) water will be piped via the SAR Pipeline to the San Bernardino Water Recycling
Plant (“SBWRP”) where it will be mixed with the SBWRP’s secondary-treated water and
Comment Letter SEJA
Valley District c/o Tom Barnes, ESA
February 1, 2016
Page 2
sent to the Rapid Infiltration and Extraction (“RIX”) Facility. We do not understand why
you are sending tertiary-treated water into a secondary-treated water flow; it sounds like a
waste of energy. Can you please explain this?
At 2-33 you have a table to truck trips per year. The table appears to diverge from the
text in a couple of different ways. First, the text immediately above the table indicates
that there will be 600 truck trips with dewatered biosolids per year, whereas the table
indicates there will be 720. More fundamentally, elsewhere in the EIR you indicate that
there could be up to 5 truck trips per day with biosolids, which is far in excess of the 720
you estimate in the table (and, we believe, use for your air quality estimates).
Aesthetics
At 3.1-11, you state that the project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista. However, it is apparent that you did not take photographs in the direction of
the mountains, see Figure 3.1-1 (Inset) which is the direction in which there could be a
scenic vista from the project site. We therefore question your conclusion that there is no
significant impact from construction of the project. As you note yourself, the City of
Highland Conservation and Open Space Element reflects a goal to preserve views and
vistas including of the San Bernardino Mountain ridgelines.
Air Quality
At page 3.3-19, you indicate “The analysis of localized air quality impacts focuses only
on the on-site activities of a project, and does not include emissions that are generated
offsite such as from on- road haul or delivery truck trips (SCAQMD, 2003).” We are
surprised if that is SCAQMD’s guidance and question its validity if so. We believe haul
and construction truck trips must be included for the air quality construction impact
analysis to have any validity.
At page 3.3-20 you indicate that you modeled the mobile source emissions from
operation on the assumption that there would be 25 employee visits per day. Elsewhere
in the document you state that there will only be 5 employees there per day. We agree
with you that your estimates should be conservative.
At page 3.3-21 you conclude that the project would not conflict with or obstruct the
implementation of an Air Quality Management Plan (“AQMP”). In reaching this
conclusion you assume that the project is consistent with the land use designation in the
City’s General Plan. We do not believe that it is. The land is zoned for Business Park
but will be having traffic from five diesel trucks per day according to other portions of
the DEIR. We do not believe that an industrial facility such as the SNRC is in fact what
the site was zoned for. Accordingly, it is not consistent with the Southern California
Association of Government’s (“SCAG’s”) growth projections and it conflicts with the
AQMP.
Comment Letter SEJA
Valley District c/o Tom Barnes, ESA
February 1, 2016
Page 3
On the same page you claim that the SNRC would replace treatment processes and air
emissions at the RIX facility. With growth, we suspect the SNRC will be doing more
than replacing the RIX facility’s emissions. Prior statements indicate that the SNRC will
be operating in conjunction with RIX. We think your air quality emissions analysis
should take this into account.
At page 3.3-24 with regard to Impact 3.3-2 you concede that the project could violate an
air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing violation with regard to NOx and you have termed this impact significant and unavoidable. We note that if you were
to defer construction of one or more discharge structures into 2017 you would not have a
significant impact; thus, the significant impact is avoidable and capable of mitigation.
At page 3.3-28 concerning Impact 3.3-3 you recognize that the area is in nonattainment
for ozone, PM10 and PM2.5. Yet you rely on SCAQMD’s cumulative impact methodology
to conclude that because the individual project does not result in emissions of criteria
pollutants in excess of its thresholds, you need do no more. We take issue with
SCAQMD’s methodology and do not find it reliable. Under CEQA an analysis of
cumulative impacts is meant to look at whether a project in combination with other
projects has a cumulative effect. In any event there is a duty to mitigate the impacts
relating to NOx. We recommend you consider reducing your construction activities while
school children are present at the school across the street.
At page 3.3-30 you state that Local Significance Thresholds (“LST’s”) at a receptor
distance of 82 feet are used conservatively even when the receptor is closer. Some of the
receptors likely are closer and thus SCAQMD’s numbers are underestimates. The impact
therefore is greater and may exceed the LST’s for PM10, PM2.5 (see Table 3.3-12).
At page 3.3-33 you state that the two year construction period is much less than the 70-
year period used for risk determination by OEHHA. This is for cancer risks. OEHHA
has recognized that Diesel Particulate Matter (“DPM”) can inflame the airways, enhance
allergic responses, and make children more susceptible to allergies and asthma. DPM is
one of “five toxic air contaminants that may cause children and infants to be especially
susceptible to illness.” OEHHA Press Release No. 01-02 (Sept. 18, 2001) (included as
Attachment 1). The conclusion that this potential impact is less than significant without
even discussing it is an abuse of discretion.
At page 3.3-33 you also contend that the operational emissions of Toxic Air
Contaminants (“TACs”) from the planned cogeneration facility will be dealt with in an
air permit from SCAQMD. This is segmentation. You should have evaluated the
operational emissions from the cogeneration facility in this document. CEQA is meant to
inform the public and decisionmakers about the environmental consequences of decisions
before they are made. This document does not disclose the size of the proposed
cogeneration facility or the TACs it would likely emit.
On the same page under Impact 3.5-5 you recognize that the proposed project could
create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. You claim that a
Comment Letter SEJA
Valley District c/o Tom Barnes, ESA
February 1, 2016
Page 4
complaint response protocol and operating procedures will reduce these impacts to less
than significant. We do not believe this is adequate. Further, you have not specified that
the trucks for biosolids would be enclosed – we think this mitigation should be added.
Biological Resources
At page 3.4-5 the DEIR concedes that the assessment of the biological resources for the
Twin Creek Spreading Grounds was conducted as a “desktop exercise” and “must be
field verified.” We think that should have been done for this DEIR as it is what the
agency and the public will rely upon in making a decision regarding the project as well as
this aspect of the project (again, you have not specified how much water is going to go to
each of the four outlets you have planned for).
Impact 3.4-1: Construction and operation of the project could have a substantial
adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications on plant and wildlife
species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by CDFW or USFWS.
With regard to special status plants, we note that Mitigation Measure BIO-1 only
provides for compensation or relocation of state or federally listed species. See DEIR at
3.4-55. You have an obligation to mitigate significant impacts and you have not dealt
with a number of special status plants other than those that are listed species. We don’t
believe the HCP addresses all of them either. Also there should have been focused plant
surveys done as part of the DEIR, not afterward. The public is entitled to know what the
project will do. From what we can tell from your Biological Resources Report special
status plants with a high probability of being in the project area along the floodplain of
City Creek include the Plummer’s mariposa lily, the smooth tarplant, the Parry’s
spineflower and the white-bracted spineflower.
At 3.4-46 to 3.4-47 you indicate that terrestrial wildlife species could be impacted by the
construction of discharge facilities in City Creek or other locations (again, you did not do
the surveys to look for these species before doing the EIR, which is a separate CEQA
violation). You state that Mitigation Measure BIO-2 requires that “Valley District would
compensate for the impact through compliance with the state and federal Endangered
Species Acts.” However, this only relates to listed species and not special status species.
Impacts to other special status species could therefore be significant. You are required to
mitigate for these impacts. That means you should have done the surveys and identified
mitigation measures for these species in the EIR.
The DEIR states that the western burrowing owl has the presence to be at the site of the
proposed SNRC or its pipelines. “Presence/absence of this species must be determined
prior to the start of construction.” DEIR at 3.4-47. Focused surveys should have
occurred prior to the drafting of the EIR so the public and responsible agencies would
know this before Valley District passed upon the project. Regarding the burrowing owl
and other special status, non-listed species, the DEIR claims that Mitigation Measure
BIO-2 would require pre-construction surveys and “removal” of the species from
Comment Letter SEJA
Valley District c/o Tom Barnes, ESA
February 1, 2016
Page 5
construction areas. What, exactly, do you propose to do with them? The Mitigation
Measure (listed at 3.4-55) only deals with state or federally listed species. There thus is
no mitigation. What does this “removal” entail? This is why these surveys should have
been done already, so that solutions could be found in advance. The public and
responsible agencies should have the opportunity to consider what should happen to these
species.
Also at 3.4-47 you state that the operation of the discharge facilities at City Creek will
result in a change in the habitat from Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub (“RAFSS”) to
Cottonwood-Willow Riparian Forest, which you acknowledge is not suitable for the
federally listed SBKR (the San Bernardino Merriam’s Kangaroo Rat). This is in critical
habitat for the species and we believe it is adverse modification in violation of the federal
Endangered Species Act. You state that implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-2
would ensure that impacts would be “avoided where feasible and appropriately
compensated when unavoidable through consultation with the CDFW and USFWS.”
Mitigation Measure BIO-2 does not acknowledge that the Upper Santa Ana River Habitat
Conservation Plan has not been implemented. Thus compensation is not presently
possible, and avoidance is not feasible in the case of the SBKR.
At 3.4-48 you indicate there could be construction impacts to special status aquatic
wildlife (including the western spadefoot and the western pond turtle) by the construction
of the discharge facilities in City Creek and possibly the East Twin Creeks Spreading
Grounds basin. Again you state that “Mitigation Measure BIO-2 would require pre-
construction surveys to clear the construction zone of these species.” As noted above
Mitigation Measure BIO-2 only deals with state or federally listed species. There is no
provision for habitat or conservation for these other special status species.
On the same page you are inconsistent as to the results of the Reduced Discharge Study
included in the Appendices. Here it states that it would reduce the wetted area by 6
percent, not 3 percent, and result in an average change in velocity class by 2 percent (not
exceeding 6 percent) of the total channel area (earlier you said 3 percent). We are glad
that you were conservative and concluded in the report that there could be a significant
impact to the Santa Ana sucker (“SAS”), as is discussed at 3.4-51.
At page 3.4-51 as well you mention that Valley District is preparing an HCP for the
Upper SAR “while allowing for a number of covered projects to proceed.” You do not
list these projects which could have cumulative effects to the present project. You should
have discussed them in the Cumulative Impacts discussion of the DEIR but did not. In
fact the DEIR notes that there are other projects which could further reduce the flow at
RIX, but you do not mention them or the magnitude of their potential reduction. This is a
critical flaw in the DEIR.
At 3.4-52 you indicate that one of the proposed projects within the as-yet unfinalized
Upper SAR HCP may be to introduce flows to City Creek. We are unsure whether this
will mitigate impacts to the SAS as there have been no sightings of the SAS in City
Creek since 1982 and the substrate may not be suitable.
Comment Letter SEJA
Valley District c/o Tom Barnes, ESA
February 1, 2016
Page 6
At 3.4-52 to -53 you list aspects of a Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (“HMMP”)
which you propose in lieu of the HCP. Reliable funding is needed for all aspects of the
HMMP listed. What is the funding, when will it be established, and how are we to rely
upon it? Note that HMMP measure SAS-5 includes discharge into the Rialto Drain,
which will require a discharge permit from the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
When will this be obtained? Also in this chart SAS-6 requires “establishment” of an SAS
population in City Creek. When and how do you propose that this will happen relative to
the cutoff of flow at RIX? These questions should have been answered before the DEIR
was drafted. The agency and the public should have information on impacts and
mitigation measures before it passes on the project. Again, we have not been informed of
the magnitude of the flows proposed at City Creek.
Less reduction in the discharge at RIX, that is, piping more of the effluent in the SAR
pipeline that you propose to refurbish, could reduce impacts to the SAS.
At 3.4-54 you state, under “Construction Impacts” to critical habitat (it really should be
under operational impacts), that the reduction in RAFSS at City Creek would reduce the
amount of habitat for the SBKR. Yet you conclude without analysis that this is not
“adverse modification.” We disagree. In any event, it is an impact under CEQA – one
that is apparently not mitigated. You state without support that “[a]dditionally there is
potential for the project to improve SBKR habitat and terracing along the edges of the
Creek which would result in additional function and quality.” We’d like support for this
statement. We believe introducing flows into the Creek will reduce habitat for the
SBKR.
You also reiterate on that page that habitat for the SAS can be developed in City Creek.
We are concerned for the reasons stated earlier.
At page 3.4-55, you state “Therefore, there will be no adverse modification of Critical
Habitat as a result of the operational requirements of the project.” We disagree both as to
the modification of RAFSS which is likely to support the SBKR at City Creek, and as to
the reduction in flow below RIX as to the SAS. Also at page 3.4-54 to 3.4-55 you state
that the drainage of water into City Creek “or other basins” will support the growth of
riparian habitat. But this is not critical habitat and you have not convinced us that you are
not destroying or adversely modifying critical habitat. In fact, the construction of
drainage channels in City Creek will destroy critical habitat for the SBKR.
At 3.4-55 you list Mitigation Measure BIO-1. This calls for focused plant surveys (which
should have been done already) and for the relocation of state or federally listed plants.
As you know, CEQA concerns itself with more than merely state or federally listed
plants. There should be plans for the relocation of nonlisted species of special concern.
Also (and this is one of the reasons why focused surveys should have been done already)
there is no guarantee that relocated plants will survive, and usually relocation also
involves attempts to propogate additional specimens of the species. You have no
provision for this in the DEIR.
Comment Letter SEJA
Valley District c/o Tom Barnes, ESA
February 1, 2016
Page 7
At 3.4-55 to -56 you have Mitigation Measure BIO-2. Again, CEQA concerns itself with
more than state or federally listed animal species. Your mitigation measure does not
include any steps to protect special status species other than federally or state listed
species, except with regard to the burrowing owl. With regard to the burrowing owl, you
propose passive relocation “if burrowing owl avoidance is infeasible,” even during
nesting. We believe you are required under CDFW guidance to wait until the nesting
season has ended. This is not presently included in Mitigation Measure BIO-2.
We have commented on our concerns regarding Mitigation Measure BIO-3, regarding the
SAS, previously. We note with regard to the SAS that the USFWS Draft Recovery Plan,
included in your Appendices, indicates that the highest priority for the recovery of the
SAS is “implementation of management actions to restore and improve habitat conditions
throughout the current range of the species.” Draft Recovery Plan at iii (emphasis
supplied). That includes in particular below the RIX discharge. We do not think
withdrawing waters from the RIX discharge contribute to the recovery of the species.
At 3.4-58 you concede that Impact 3.4-1 (“Construction and operation of the project
could have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications on
plant and wildlife species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in
local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by CDFW or USFWS”) could be
significant and unavoidable. As stated above you do not adequately mitigate for these
impacts, nor do you analyze them sufficiently.
At 3.4-58 to 3.4-59 you conclude that Impact 3.4-2 (“Construction of the project could
result in potential direct and indirect impacts to riparian habitat and other sensitive
natural communities identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by
CDFW or USFWS”) would be less than significant. Yet you concede that both
construction and operation of the project within City Creek will affect (that is, ultimately
eliminate) the RAFSS habitat there. This is a “sensitive natural community identified . . .
by CDFW or USFWS.” We disagree with your significance determination, and believe
you have to mitigate for it. You have not identified any mitigation measures other than
Mitigation Measure BIO-4, which requires the installation of drip pans and other
measures to limit machinery spills and entrapment of animals. This does not address
impacts to the habitat. Additionally, Mitigation Measure BIO-4 does not address direct
construction impacts to terrestrial animal species by the presence of workers and
machinery. We believe the impacts are significant and mitigation is not adequate.
Workers should be trained to avoid sensitive species, among other things.
Also on these pages you conclude that impacts to plants will be reduced to less than
significant levels by Mitigation Measure BIO-1. Again, this only deals with listed plants.
At 3.4-61 you conclude that Impact 3.4-4 (“Construction of the project could result in the
interference with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the
use of native wildlife nursery sites”) would be less than significant. We believe the SAR
Comment Letter SEJA
Valley District c/o Tom Barnes, ESA
February 1, 2016
Page 8
below RIX is a native wildlife nursery site and corridor for the SAS and that reduced
flows could impact this site. You have previously concluded as much yourselves. The
impact should be listed as significant. Your conclusion that the diversion to City Creek
could increase the potential for SAS migration in the future is presently unsupported.
At 3.4-61 to 3.4-62 you have Mitigation Measure BIO-5. It indicates that you do not plan
to engage in construction activities from February through August. It is not apparent that
you actually plan to avoid these construction months based on your Air Quality
modeling. In the alternative you indicate that you will develop a “suitable buffer” for any
active nest observed. You do not define “suitable buffer.” Also you state that onsite
monitoring “may” be required. We do not believe your conclusion that impacts to avian
species is less than significant has a basis with the present mitigation measure.
At 3.4-63 to 3.4-64 you include a brief discussion of cumulative impacts, noting that the
City of San Bernardino and the City of Rialto are also considering projects that would
contribute to a further reduction of the flow at RIX. You should quantify the potential
impacts of those other projects. We have no guarantees that the other agencies will sign
on to an Upper SAR HCP or that such an HCP (or additional HMMPs) will work. As
you concede, at some point, “flow reductions would result in direct impacts to the [SAS]
and mortality of fish.” These cumulative projects should, at a minimum, be gradually
introduced so that we can be assured that your mitigations will work. We are unsure that
the agency has any ability to assure this. Accordingly, a functioning HCP is vital.
Cultural Resources
At 3.5-40 you conclude that there is no significant impact with regard to historical or
archaeological resources (“The project could have a significant impact if it would cause a
substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical or archaeological resource,
as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5”) based on implementation of
Mitigation Measures CUL-1, CUL-2, and CUL-3. These mitigation measures require the
hiring of a qualified archaeologist to conduct a Phase I survey, having that archaeologist
train all construction personnel, and ceasing all activities within 100 feet in the event of a
find, until it can be evaluated. We don’t believe you can conclude impacts are
insignificant when you do not know what is there. Why wasn’t an archaeologist
contracted to review the site beforehand?
At 3.5-42 you conclude there would be no significant impact to tribal resources (“The
project could have a significant impact if it would cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in Public Resources Code
21074”). We do not see how you can determine the impact is less than significant before
conducting a detailed search for such items. Only Mitigation Measure CUL-5, relating to
human remains, calls for consultation with the California Native American Heritage
Commission (“NAHC”), and none of your mitigation measures call for consultation with
individual tribes.
Comment Letter SEJA
Valley District c/o Tom Barnes, ESA
February 1, 2016
Page 9
Geology and Soils
The SNRC site is located between two Alquist-Priolo fault zones in an area where the
liquefaction probability is high. See Figure 3.61 at 3.6-5. At page 3.6-4 you
acknowledge that “The probability of an earthquake of a Mw of 5.0 or higher occurring
within about a 50 kilometer radius of the proposed SNRC site within the next 20 years
is between 80 and 100 percent (USGS, 2009).” The peak ground acceleration (“PGA”)
estimated for this site is 1.036 g when it was listed at 0.64 near the epicenter of the Loma
Prieta earthquake, “which using the modified Mercalli intensity scale would be
considered a violent event at Intensity IX.” This means – according to the DEIR at 3.6-6
– that there would be “Damage considerable in specially designed structures; well
designed frame structures thrown out of plumb; great in substantial buildings with partial
collapse; buildings shifted off of foundations; ground cracked conspicuously;
underground pipes broken.” Despite this information Valley District has prepared an EIR
without a geotechnical study. As the DEIR itself notes, “Geotechnical studies are
essential for facility and pipeline design because it is information that informs the
structural design of the foundation and determines whether the geologic materials
underlying the proposed facilities are capable of supporting the proposed uses.” DEIR at
3.6-19 to 3.6-20 (emphasis supplied). Since you have not yet done this evaluation it is
not possible to determine whether the SNRC can be safely built. At DEIR 3.6-20 you
concede that your impact analysis “assumes that geotechnhical recommendations . . .
would be fully implemented,” however you have not informed the public of what they
are. We doubt that your Air Quality analysis assessed the impacts of criteria pollutants
from the massive cut-and-fill activities that would be necessary if soils underneat the
project were (as they likely are) determined to be inadequate to prevent liquefaction.
At DEIR 3.6-21 you baselessly conclude as to Impact 3.6-1 that “The proposed project
would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including
the risk of loss, injury or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault; strong
seismic ground shaking; or seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction or
landslides.” We don’t see how you can reach this conclusion based on the location of the
project and the information you have already given us, without even a geotechnical study
of how the project can safely be implemented. There clearly can be injury or death not
only of SNRC workers but residents in the area assuming there is a halt to the safe
functioning of a sewage plant. This is a public health concern you have ignored entirely.
On the same page you note the grounds underneath the plant could be subject to
liquefaction. You identify methods to correct this but none are identified as Mitigation
Measures. You can’t define those mitigation measures because you have not quantified
the extent of the problem. This deferral violates CEQA. Meanwhile you concede that
“an earthquake with a magnitude of 5.0 or higher has a 90 to 100 percent chance of
occurring in the San Bernardino region within the next 20 years.”
At DEIR 3.6-22 you state that the area of the SNRC has undergone historical subsidence
but that the project would not be subsidence for unknown reasons. Though the project
Comment Letter SEJA
Valley District c/o Tom Barnes, ESA
February 1, 2016
Page 10
involves groundwater recharge you cannot guarantee that there will not be subsidence
and this should be acknowledged as a potentially significant impact.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
At DEIR 3.7-14 you conclude there would be no significant impact from the operation of
the SNRC because the emissions from the SNRC would be offset by reduced emissions
from the SBWRP. The fact remains that the construction of the SNRC would increase
capacity for water recycling and that capacity would likely be (if not now, later) used. As
such you should have evaluated the combined GHG emissions from the two plants at full
capacity.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
At 3.8-14 with regard to Impact 3.8-2 you conclude the proposed project “would not
result in hazardous emissions or the handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.”
To the contrary, it would. As you note, the project is within one-quarter mile of the
Indian Springs High School (actually, it is adjacent to it), as well as Highland Head Start
day care center and Laura’s Day Care. The fact that all hazardous materials would
reportedly be “used in compliance with existing federal, state, and local regulations” does
not change the fact that you are using hazardous materials within less than a quarter mile
of a school. This is a risk the school children are exposed to that they were not exposed
to before. You have no basis for concluding that this impact is less than significant. As
such, you need to identify plans to mitigate this impact. Specifically, you should include
hazardous materials handling requirements in the DEIR.
Hydrology and Water Quality
At Impact 3.9-1, at DEIR page 3.9-21, you indicate that the proposed project would
discharge effluent into City Creek, which has an intermittent MUN designation – that is,
it is drinking water. The effluent is tertiary treated recycled water which has been
identified as permissible for full body contact but not for drinking. As you note this
means that the MUN designation would have to be removed or the Division of Drinking
Water would need to allow the discharge. This is a potential (serious) violation of a
water quality standard and a public health issue. We don’t believe you have mitigated
this impact to a level of insignificance merely by changing the water designation or by
getting a discharge permit. The water quality will be reduced.
At DEIR 3.9-22, you also note that discharge to City Creek, the East Twin Creek
Spreading Grounds or Redlands Basins could result in effluent infiltrating into
groundwater that is designated MUN. This presents the same issue. You say
“compliance with WRR and NPDES discharge limits would be protective of MUN
beneficial uses,” but elsewhere you note that the groundwater basins need assimilative
capacity for TDS and nitrate. Are there any guarantees that the effluent will not go into
Bunker Hill Basin B, which does not have assimilative capacity? The DEIR contains no
Comment Letter SEJA
Valley District c/o Tom Barnes, ESA
February 1, 2016
Page 11
maps from which we can reach any conclusion on this issue. At 3.9-23 you indicate
Valley District will have to prepare an antidegradation analysis – that should have been
done in conjunction with the DEIR. Mitigation Measure HYDRO-2 at 3.9-23 would
require the District to install a groundwater monitoring network, and if that monitoring
finds neighboring wells to be adversely affected, the District would have to either modify
treatment, modify the wells by screening them, or compensate the well owner through
providing a replacement well or water. This is a major potential impact and the
mitigation measure does not (by providing replacement water) reduce it to less-than-
significant levels.
At 3.9-24 regarding the potential for excessive siltation (Impact 3.9-3, “The project could
substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial
erosion, siltation or flooding on- or offsite”), you indicate that the project could alter the
existing pattern of drainage at City Creek and that this could result in “minor” sediment
transport. On what basis do you conclude that it would be “minor”?
Regarding Impact 3.9-9 you conclude that the reduced discharge would not adversely
affect downstream uses but you acknowledge that there are other cumulative recycled
water projects which will reduce flows from RIX and that eventually maintaining
minimal flow commitments will be the responsibility of the District. You should have
identified the other potential cumulative projects, their timing and the quantity they will
withdraw from RIX, as well as how you intend to maintain minimum flows.
Land Use
DEIR page 3.10-10 concludes that the Business Park designation is “generally
consistent” with the use planned for the SNRC. We disagree. Highland’s General Plan
designation for Business Park facilities allows for “light industrial facilities and
administrative facilities.” A sewage treatment plant is a heavily industrial facility. At
3.10-11 you concede that you are relying on Gov. Code section 53091 which exempts
you from zoning ordinances. That does not make the project consistent with the land use
designation. This is a significant impact and should be identified as such.
Noise
Impact 3.11-1 recognizes that the project could result in exposure of persons to noise
levels in excess of standards established in a local general plan or noise ordinance. The
DEIR acknowledges that intermittent noise levels that are substantially greater than the
existing ambient noise levels will be generated. You claim that the implementation of
Mitigation Measure NOISE-1 will minimize the effects of construction noise “to the
maximum extent feasible,” but the Mitigation Measure merely says steps “may” include
noise barriers, curtains, or shells. The project is adjacent to a school. Noise barriers,
curtains, or shells should be required, as should be mufflers on all machinery.
Comment Letter SEJA
Valley District c/o Tom Barnes, ESA
February 1, 2016
Page 12
Environmental Justice
The SNRC would be bordered on three sides by low income residential areas and a public
high school. You emphasize the community meeting offerings of the Administration
Center but do not provide any indication that these facilities will be made available to
local residents. Morever, this is a sewage treatment plant in what you concede is a highly
impacted community.
Public Services, Utilities and Energy
With regard to Impact 3.13-2 you indicate the project would have a significant impact if
it would exceed the wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable RWQCB and
you note that the valley segment of City Creek has an intermittent MUN designation.
With regard to the discharges to City Creek we note that you apparently need them for
habitat for the planned HCP or the HMMP. If you cannot get a permit from the DDW
then this planned (potential, untested) habitat is at risk. You conclude this impact is less
than significant – this depends on whether you can (or should) get the permit.
Cumulative Impacts
Your cumulative impact analysis, DEIR 4-1 et seq., represents an abuse of discretion.
You chose to list a series of public works projects in some cities and then other types of
construction projects in the City of San Bernardino. With regard to biological resources,
you should have been focusing on a list of other water recycling projects that will affect
SAR habitat including the SAS.1 We see no basis for your using public works projects
within a five mile radius of the project. If you were looking to air quality impacts, which
you did not analyze in any detail at all, it is totally illogical to limit your list to public
works projects.
At DEIR 4-12 you use the SCAQMD threshold that only if a project has a significant
impact on its own will it have cumulative impacts. This threshold is contrary to the
CEQA Guidelines and should not be relied upon.
At DEIR 4-13 you assess biological resources cumulative impacts and you acknowledge
the other projects that may reduce flows from RIX but you do not quantify this reduction.
Also you acknowledge that the cumulative reduction in water could reduce riparian
vegetation but you claim that Mitigation Measure BIO-3 requiring reduction of invasive
vegetation would reduce this impact to less-than-significant levels. The mitigation
measure does not indicate how long the agency is committed to reducing invasive
vegetation or who specifically is going to do it. Moreover, if the water flow is reduced
the riparian vegetation will almost certainly be reduced regardless, and this is a
significant impact.
1 At DEIR 4-4 you do include the Clean Water Factory planned by SBMWD, but you do not
analyze the impacts to flow with any numbers as to quantity of reduction.
Comment Letter SEJA
Valley District c/o Tom Barnes, ESA
February 1, 2016
Page 13
At DEIR 4-13 we are told that at a greater than 12 MGD reduction from RIX there would
be direct impacts to SAS and mortality of fish. Yet we do not know the scope of the
other water recycling projects so we cannot determine how likely this impact will be.
At DEIR 4-15 with regard to GHG emissions, you simply state that the project on its own
won’t have a significant impact on emissions. We disagree with any threshold that states
that a project is not cumulatively significant if it is not significant on its own.
Growth Inducement
At DEIR 5-4 you indicate that because the project is limited to the provision of water
supply infrastructure, as opposed to housing or community development, “the proposed
project would not directly contribute to the creation of additional housing or jobs.”
However, the recycled water supply improves the overall water supply for the region,
including, apparently, MUN water, so it can lead to growth inducement, and you should
acknowledge this. As you acknowledge at DEIR 5-5, the facility removes an impediment
to growth. The fact that the Cities of Highland and San Bernardino have adopted
Statements of Overriding Consideration for the significant unavoidable environmental
effects of further planned growth in their General Plan EIRs does not absolve you of
acknowledging an impact and mitigating for it.
Alternatives Analysis
At DEIR 6-6 you discuss the different discharge alternatives. You do not indicate here or
anywhere else in the document the magnitude of flows from each of the discharges and it
appears you intend to rely on all four of them. You should quantify what your plan
involves as it is critical, and this is one of the reasons why the DEIR should be revised
and recirculated (with the studies you are presently missing).
At DEIR 6-7 you state that three alternatives have been considered but your analysis
includes four (other than the proposed project and the no project alternative).
With regard to your alternatives analysis proper, you need to choose an alternative site
that would make a difference in the proposed project, at least from an environmental
justice perspective. Alternative 2 does not do this. Also with regard to Alternative 2 the
Cultural Resource impacts could be different but we don’t know because you have not
evaluated them at either site.
At DEIR 6-17 with regard to the Reduced Capacity Alternative we do not believe you
have adequately described or analyzed the alternative. Only if you do not send water
down the SAR Pipeline would there not be a reduction in the withdrawal of water from
RIX. There is no point in analyzing the Reduced Capacity Alternative if you don’t
simultaneously send some of it to RIX. (Again, you should be specifying how much goes
to each outlet.)
Comment Letter SEJA
Valley District c/o Tom Barnes, ESA
February 1, 2016
Page 14
At DEIR 6-19 with regard to the Reduced Capacity Alternative as to Transportation and
Traffic you have only looked at employee trips and deliveries rather than the reduction in
biosolids trucks leaving the facility. This improperly skews your analysis. Also on that
page you indicate there would be greater secondary effects to growth due to the Reduced
Capacity Alternative. We think the opposite would occur. It would create an obstacle to
growth and would reduce growth.
At DEIR 6-19 to 6-21 you evaluate creating a fifth source to send water to at Plunge
Creek Basins but we can’t evaluate it because we don’t know how much water would go
to the other sites or to this one – under the original alternative (the planned project) or the
Plunge Creek Basins alternative. At 6-21 you indicate that Land Use and Planning could
be subject to the Wash Plan HCP. What is this? You indicate there would be greater
impacts to land use – what, specifically? There is no basis for evaluating this alternative
as you have not provided a map indicating where it is.
At DEIR 6-22 you evaluate a “Reduced Diversion Alternative,” which would construct
the proposed project but would return 3 MGD at all times to the RIX facility. How does
this differ from the proposed project? You state the proposed project would only divert 6
MGD from RIX when it is as 10 MGD plant. The public has no basis for evaluating what
you are proposing here. On the same page you conclude that this Reduced Diversion
Alternative would still have a significant and unavoidable impact on biological resources.
Your reduced flow study does not support this conclusion as it seems to imply that even 6
MGD would not have an impact. That aside, it is clear that the difference between 3
MGD and 6 MGD could be significant for the SAS.
At DEIR 6-24, 6-25, despite the presence of the Reduced Diversion Alternative, you
conclude that the project is the environmentally superior alternative because there will be
more habitat mitigation. We frankly find this absurd. There is no viable habitat for the
SAS in City Creek at this time and there are no guarantees that you can create it. It is
simply not as good as existing habitat, much less better.
Additional Comments
You have not indicated what security you will have for the plant or the security of the
cogeneration plant. You have indicated that you may require an electrical substation but
you have not evaluated its potential impacts or hazards. In your Project Description you
have not identified the types of wastewater facilities or the processes for each type other
than those of the proposed project.
We look forward to your responses. Please forward a notice of availability of the Final
EIR to collins@blumcollins.com and bentley@blumcollins.com. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Craig M. Collins
Comment Letter SEJA
1
From the Desk of Anthony Serrano
Sent Via E-Mail “tbarnes@esassoc.com”
TO: San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District
c/o Tom Barnes, Environmental Science Associates
626 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90017
FROM: Anthony Serrano, Local Taxpayer
7517 Mr. McDuffs Way
Highland, CA 92346
(909) 496-4733 Cell/ e-mail “anthonyaserrano@gmail.com”
DATE: Monday, February 1, 2016
SUBJECT: Comments Submitted
Sterling Natural Resource Center Environmental Impact Report
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments, I support the proposed project but I have concerns and I have read
section 1.4.5 of the report that states the following:
“1.4.5 Final EIR Publication and Certification
Once the DEIR public review period has ended, Valley District will prepare written responses to
all comments. The Final EIR will be comprised of the DEIR, responses to comments received on
the DEIR, and any changes or corrections to the DEIR that are made as part of the responses to
comments. As the Lead Agency, Valley District has the option to make the Final EIR available
for public review prior to considering the project for approval (CEQA Guidelines §15089(b)). The
Final EIR must be available to commenting agencies at least 10 days prior to certification (CEQA
Guidelines §15088(b)).”
My comments are:
1. Costs - my original questions submitted dated November 15, 2015, question #22 asked for costs. Your report
does not include any costs for the “cost/benefit scenarios for the mitigation of alternatives?” Public Resources
Code 21001. ADDITIONAL LEGISLATIVE INTENT: The Legislature further finds and declares that it is the policy of
the state to: “(g) Require governmental agencies at all levels to consider qualitative factors as well as
economic and technical factors and long-term benefits and costs, in addition to short-term benefits and
costs and to consider alternatives to proposed actions affecting the environment.” If your report does not
include any cost information will the Lead Agency be proving the cost information pursuant to state law?
2. Harmony Project in City of Highland - Mr. Steve Rogers and I met with Mr. Larry Mainez, Director Community
Development week of week of January 25, 2016 and Larry stated that the City has had many meetings and
discussions to connect the Harmony Project into the proposed waste water treatment facility but your report does not
include any provisions for the connection? Has your team have any records or plans for the connection?
3. Lockheed Martin - your report does not include any references to the water pollution cause by Lockheed. Attached is
a recent report dated year 2011.
Thank you.
W/attachment
Comment Letter Serrano
From:Tom Barnes
To:Camille Castillo
Subject:Fwd: Anthony Serrano and SNRC comment letter?
Date:Tuesday, February 02, 2016 1:25:04 PM
Attachments:2-1-2016 Tom Barnes re Comments Sterling Natural Resource Center EIR.doc
110215K5-att2.pdf
Tom
323-829-1221 cell
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: FW: Anthony Serrano and SNRC comment letter?
From: Heather Dyer <heatherd@sbvmwd.com>
To: "Elie, Steve (S.Elie@MPGLAW.com)" <S.Elie@MPGLAW.com>,"Jean Cihigoyenetche
(JeanCihigoyenetche@cgclaw.com)" <JeanCihigoyenetche@cgclaw.com>,"Jane Ellison
Usher (j.usher@mpglaw.com)" <j.usher@mpglaw.com>,"Aladjem, David"
<daladjem@DowneyBrand.com>,"Pearson, Amanda MacGregor"
<apearson@DowneyBrand.com>,Tom Barnes
<TBarnes@ESASSOC.COM>,"'ash@akdconsulting.com'" <ash@akdconsulting.com>
CC: Kelly Malloy <kmalloy@eastvalley.org>
Heather
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Heather Dyer
Water Resources Project Manager
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District
380 East Vanderbilt Way, San Bernardino, CA 92408
909-387-9256
heatherd@sbvmwd.com
From: Anthony Serrano [mailto:anthonyaserrano@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2016 1:11 PM
To: Heather Dyer <heatherd@sbvmwd.com>
Subject: Re: Anthony Serrano and SNRC comment letter?
2-2-2016: Heather - thank you for your e-mail inquiry and here are the two docs I sent to Tom
Barnes yesterday via e-mail re my three comments...I kept my comments short. One of my
comments dealt with the old Lockheed Martin polluting problem and my expanded comments
are provided below. Based on this information, I think Tom Barnes needs to provide some
followup to his Draft EIR to adresss this issue as well as the other issues raised.
Lockheed Martin Propulsion Company Polluting
Given the problems in Flint, Michigan with the "lead" related problems in their water...here
locally we have had an ongoing problem with the old Lockheed Martin Propulsion Company
Comment Letter Serrano
polluting Bunker Hill Basin and the Mill Creek spreading grounds BUT Tom Barnes did not
address the issue in his Draft EIR? If we, as local taxpayers, are going to pay for a new state-
of-the-art waste water treatment facility.....the Lead Agency should insist that this ongoing
environmental issue is identified and some type of mitigation plan be put in place once and
for all to avoid any future problems OR contaminating the new waste water treatment
facility?
2/15/2011 Report
Attached is a 7-page report dated 2/15/2011 (almost 5 years ago to the date) that was used in a
City of Redlands Council Meeting Agenda. Many other documents exist on this issue.....but
Tom Barnes failed to address the issue and provide any information as to the status of the old
problem? Two key paragraphs listed in the report are restated below:
a) "investigating and remediating a plume of trichloroethylene (“TCE”) and a plume of
perchlorate in the Bunker Hill Basin (together, the “Plume”) pursuant to Cleanup and
Abatement Orders Nos. 94-37, 97-58 and 01-56 issued by the Santa Ana Regional Water
Quality Control Board (the “Regional Board”)," and
b) "observations in monitoring wells located at the former Lockheed Propulsion
Company site (“Site”), much of which is currently the San Bernardino Valley Water
Conservation District’s Mill Creek spreading grounds (used for ground water recharge) in the
community of Mentone, suggest that there may be releases of residual perchlorate in soils to
groundwater at the Site during periods of high groundwater levels that are caused by high
precipitation or recharge operations."
On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 10:48 AM, Heather Dyer <heatherd@sbvmwd.com> wrote:
Hi Anthony,
Were you still planning to submit a formal comment letter on the project? I just wanted to
make sure that I didn't miss it somehow.
Thanks,
Heather
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Heather Dyer
Water Resources Project Manager
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District
380 East Vanderbilt Way, San Bernardino, CA 92408
909-387-9256
heatherd@sbvmwd.com
Comment Letter Serrano
1
I:\ca\djm\Agreements\Lockheed Martin.Draft Agate 2 blending.mued.2.2.11.doc
AGREEMENT WITH LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION
FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF CITY OF REDLANDS COSTS ASSOCIATED
WITH BLENDING OF AGATE No. 2 WELL.
This agreement for reimbursement of the City of Redlands’ costs for blending of the
Agate No. 2 well (“Agreement”) is made this 15th day of February, 2011 (“Effective Date”), by
and between Lockheed Martin Corporation (“LMC”) and the City of Redlands (“City”). LMC
and the City are sometimes individually referred to herein as a “Party” and, together, as the
“Parties.”
RECITALS
WHEREAS, LMC has been investigating and remediating a plume of trichloroethylene
(“TCE”) and a plume of perchlorate in the Bunker Hill Basin (together, the “Plume”) pursuant to
Cleanup and Abatement Orders Nos. 94-37, 97-58 and 01-56 issued by the Santa Ana Regional
Water Quality Control Board (the “Regional Board”); and
WHEREAS, consistent with that effort, LMC prepared a Water Supply Contingency Plan
(the “Plan”) which was approved by the Regional Board in March 1997; and
WHEREAS, LMC has taken several measures, since March 1997, to implement and
execute the Plan, including the financing and construction of new potable water supply wells for
the City, static mixing systems to improve blending capacity, and perchlorate treatment for the
City’s Rees well; and
WHEREAS, observations in monitoring wells located at the former Lockheed Propulsion
Company site (“Site”), much of which is currently the San Bernardino Valley Water
Conservation District’s Mill Creek spreading grounds (used for ground water recharge) in the
community of Mentone, suggest that there may be releases of residual perchlorate in soils to
groundwater at the Site during periods of high groundwater levels that are caused by high
precipitation or recharge operations; and
WHEREAS, the release of residual perchlorate in soils has the potential to subsequently
cause concentrations exceeding water quality standards at City water supply wells located
downgradient of the Site, in particular the Agate No. 2 and possibly the Rees well; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to an agreement between LMC and the City dated November 17,
2009, LMC has retrofitted existing equipment at the Rees well to provide perchlorate treatment,
location and is funding operations and maintenance of the treatment plant operations; and
WHEREAS, observations and analyses performed by LMC and shared with the City
indicate that impacts at the Agate No. 2 well from such releases are projected to be brief (on the
order of a few months), infrequent (not more than every two to three years), and decreasing in
magnitude (as a result of decreasing mass of perchlorate in the soil); and
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. K-5
COUNCIL MEETING OF 02/15/11
2
I:\ca\djm\Agreements\Lockheed Martin.Draft Agate 2 blending.mued.2.2.11.doc
WHEREAS, the City has plans to modify the Agate Reservoir and associated piping to
improve blending of the sources of water to this reservoir, which includes the Agate No. 2 well;
and while these modifications are designed to address issues minimizing disinfection by-
products and contaminants in the Agate No. 1 and Crafton wells, they will also address the
projected potential future perchlorate impacts to the Agate No. 2 well to the benefit of LMC;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, and for
such other good and valuable consideration the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the
City of Redlands and Lockheed Martin Corporation agree as follows:
AGREEMENT
Section 1. Recitals. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by
this reference.
Section 2. Purpose and Intent
2.1 The purpose of this Agreement is to protect the public health, to fulfill in part the
requirements set forth by the Regional Board (correspondence to LMC dated July 31,
1996) and to implement the Water Supply Contingency Plan Requirements in that
correspondence.
2.2 This Agreement’s specific objective is to ensure that the City has use of its Agate No. 2
well, unencumbered by concentrations of perchlorate which have the potential to briefly
and occasionally exceed the current Maximum Contaminant Level (“MCL”) of 6 µg/L.
2.3 This Agreement is not an admission or acknowledgement in fact or law by LMC that it is
responsible for the perchlorate contamination, TCE contamination or any other
contaminants, or their potential adverse effects on the public health or environment.
Section 3. LMC Responsibilities and Actions. LMC shall have the following responsibilities
and actions:
3.1 LMC shall review and comment on design plans and specifications developed by the
City’s contractors who are responsible for designing and constructing the modifications
to the Agate Reservoir and associated appurtenances (the “Modification Work”). The
Modification Work will be performed on the City’s existing reservoir and equipment
currently located at 1580 Agate Avenue, San Bernardino County. The objective of the
Modification Work is to improve blending performance and capacity for water from
sources to the reservoir to assure that the City’s water supply complies with California
Department of Public Health (“DPH”) drinking water requirements.
3.2 LMC shall review the scope of work and bid and contract documents prepared by the
City for the Modification Work and provide comments to the City for its review and
approval prior to construction. The bid and contract documents will be the basis for
establishing the amount of the costs for the Modification Work that LMC will fund to the
3
I:\ca\djm\Agreements\Lockheed Martin.Draft Agate 2 blending.mued.2.2.11.doc
City. LMC will fully fund the costs for the elements of the Modification Work in the
scope of work of the bid and contract documents that are directly related to the blending
of water from the Agate No. 2 well. The initial amount to be funded will be established
prior to initiating the Modification Work. It is likely that there will be changes to the
scope of work and to project costs during the execution of the Modification Work. To
address such changes, LMC agrees to add ten percent to the initial amount for costs of the
agreed-upon elements of the Modification Work. LMC shall consider, but shall not be
obligated to fund, changes to the scope of work. LMC shall also have the opportunity to
request changes to the scope of work, and will additionally fund the specific costs for
such changes.
3.3 LMC will not be responsible for operations or maintenance of the Agate Reservoir,
associated appurtenances, or the Agate No. 2 well, nor any other asset of the City unless
specified under another agreement between LMC and the City.
3.4 LMC is funding the Modification Work in accordance with this Agreement only to
address impacts resulting from perchlorate. If additional contaminants or degradation
products attributable to past LMC operations at its former Mentone site are identified at
concentrations exceeding applicable state and federal water quality standards (i.e., state
or federal MCL or state NL), the Parties shall meet and confer to identify and implement
a mutually-acceptable solution to the issue.
3.5 LMC shall reimburse the City for any necessary analytical testing related to the start up
and operation of the blending facilities associated with the Modification Work. LMC
shall assist the City with its preparation of blend plans if requested.
3.6 LMC’s participation in the Modification Work is based on the City’s commitment to
operate its water supply system in a manner that does not exacerbate or cause perchlorate
impacts, and uses best efforts to minimize the need for any additional measures to
mitigate perchlorate impacts in the City’s water supply system.
Section 4. City Responsibilities and Actions. The City shall have the following responsibilities
and actions:
4.1 The City shall develop the scope of work, bid and contract documents, and perform the
bid and award activities for the Modification Work, in accordance with public
procurement regulations applicable to the City. The City shall provide the scope of work
and bid and contract documents to LMC prior to initiating the work in order to allow
LMC to review and comment on the scope of work and to establish the funding by LMC
described in paragraph 3.2 above.
4.2 The City shall prepare and submit progress invoices to LMC for the agreed-upon
Modification Work. Invoices shall be submitted on not more than a monthly frequency.
The invoices shall detail the status of each element and task in the agreed upon work (i.e.,
the percent complete) and the detail shall be consistent with the bid tab in the bid and
4
I:\ca\djm\Agreements\Lockheed Martin.Draft Agate 2 blending.mued.2.2.11.doc
award documents. The invoice shall also detail the progress costs and total costs, and
provide sufficient backup information to allow LMC to approve the invoice for payment.
4.3 The City shall be responsible for all operations and maintenance of the wells, reservoir
and piping and appurtenances, and for blending all constituents in sources of water to the
Agate Reservoir to concentrations below their respective MCLs. If additional
contaminants or degradation products attributable to past LMC operations at this Site are
identified at concentrations exceeding applicable state and federal water quality standards
(i.e., state or federal MCL or state NL), the Parties shall meet and confer to identify and
implement a mutually-acceptable solution to the issue. If the facilities cannot be operated
under normal conditions to reduce the concentration of perchlorate to below the MCL,
then the Parties shall meet and confer to identify and implement a mutually-acceptable
solution to the issue.
4.4 The City shall continue to be the owner of all the existing equipment for the Agate No. 2
well, connecting piping and appurtenances, the Agate Reservoir and all the other sources
of water to the reservoir. Further, the City will own all new equipment installed as part
of the Modification Work provided for herein.
4.5 The City shall be responsible for all normal sampling and testing required by local and
state regulatory agencies, while LMC shall be responsible for the incremental cost
relating to operational monitoring of the blending systems (i.e., testing of perchlorate to
assure compliance with the MCL). The City shall utilize a laboratory that is mutually
acceptable to the Parties.
4.6 In addition, following construction, the City shall provide LMC with as-built plans,
including any changes to the original design plans incorporated therein.
4.7 The City shall prepare all documentation required for any modifications to the City’s
Water Supply System Permit from DPH. The City (and its Contractor) shall be
responsible for obtaining all permits and regulatory approvals for construction and
operation of the Modification Work.
4.8 The City will collect and analyze samples, and provide copies of all periodic reports
required by regulatory agencies (not less than monthly well production data, treatment
system specific flow rates, system pressure data, and all analytical data) to LMC.
4.9 The City shall be responsible for compliance with all other regulatory compliance
associated with the subject equipment, including NPDES discharge requirements.
4.10 The City shall be responsible for compliance with the California Environmental Quality
on all matters covered by this Agreement, where applicable.
4.11 The City agrees to take no action against LMC on matters covered by this Agreement so
long as LMC is performing of its obligations under this Agreement.
5
I:\ca\djm\Agreements\Lockheed Martin.Draft Agate 2 blending.mued.2.2.11.doc
Section 5. Defense and Indemnity Obligations
5.1 LMC shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City and its elected officials,
officers, and employees from and against any and all actions, damages, losses, causes of
action, and liability imposed or claimed relating to the injury or death of any person, or
damage to any property, including attorneys’ fees and other legal expenses, arising
directly or indirectly from any negligent or intentionally wrongful act or omission of
LMC in performing its obligations under this Agreement. This section 5.1 shall survive
any termination of this Agreement. This section 5.2 shall survive any termination of this
Agreement.
5.2 The City shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless LMC and its officers, employees,
and agents from and against any and all actions, damages, losses, causes of action, and
liability imposed or claimed relating to the injury or death of any person or damage to
any property, including attorneys’ fees and other legal expenses, arising directly or
indirectly from any negligent or intentionally wrongful act or omission of the City in
performing its obligations under this Agreement.
5.3 The indemnities set forth in this Section 5 shall not apply to any third party toxic tort
claims arising out of the presence of perchlorate or any other contaminant in water
purveyed by the City to the City’s customers. Nothing in this Agreement shall limit the
right of either Party to seek, by an appropriate civil action, indemnity, whether implied or
equitable, from the other in the event of a claim by a third party, including but not limited
to, a third Party toxic tort claim against either party to this Agreement arising out of or
related to perchlorate or any other contaminant from the Bunker Hill Basin.
Section 6. Procedure for Reimbursement
6.1 The City shall utilize the City’s purchasing policy to secure the services and materials
required to perform the Modification Work.
6.2 For those costs that LMC has agreed to pay pursuant to Section 3 above, LMC shall
reimburse the City within forty-five (45) days of receipt of complete and detailed
invoices from the City. Each invoice shall be broken down into the same cost categories
as set forth in the bid documents for the contractor. The statement shall include copies of
all relevant documentation, including purchasing documents, backup documentation for
all internal costs, and all invoices, including backup documentation to support all
invoiced contracted-for costs, and a declaration by an authorized representative of the
City that each amount requested in the statement is due and payable to a party who
provided materials or services for construction activities with respect to the Modification
Work. Invoices should be submitted on not more than monthly basis. The City shall
send its invoices to LMC, at the address provided by LMC, as per the terms and
conditions of the LMC purchase order to be issued to the City for this the Modification
Work. Any invoice seeking payment for an expenditure outside a cost category in the bid
documents and any statement which will cause the applicable cost category amount to be
exceeded must be accompanied by an explanation of the necessity for that expenditure.
6
I:\ca\djm\Agreements\Lockheed Martin.Draft Agate 2 blending.mued.2.2.11.doc
Section 7. Miscellaneous
7.1 This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the
state of California.
7.2 This Agreement may not be modified except by a written document signed by the Parties.
7.3 This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Parties’ respective
representatives, successors and assigns.
7.4 Severability. If any provision of this Agreement shall be adjudged invalid by any court,
the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall remain valid and enforced to the full
extent permitted by law.
7.5 No Third Party Beneficiaries. There are no third party beneficiaries of any kind to this
Agreement.
7.6 Attorneys’ Fees. In the event any legal action or proceeding is brought to enforce or
interpret any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement, the prevailing party, in
addition to any costs and other relief, shall be entitled to recover its reasonable attorneys’
fees, including fees for use of in-house counsel by a Party.
7.7 Cooperation. The Parties agree to cooperate with each other to accomplish the purposes
of this Agreement, including exchanging data and information to assist LMC in
completing the work under this Agreement.
7.8 Integration. This Agreement fully integrates the Parties’ agreement and understanding
with respect to all matters covered herein. Each Party agrees that it has not relied on any
fact, statement or representation other than as specifically recited herein.
7.9 Assignment. This Agreement shall not be assigned without the prior written consent of
the City. Any assignment or attempted assignment without such consent shall be null and
void and, at the sole option of the City, may result in the immediate termination of this
Agreement.
Section 8. Termination
8.1 LMC’s obligations under this Agreement with regard to the construction of Modification
Work shall terminate upon LMC’s issuance of final payment.
8.2 LMC’s obligations under this Agreement to address perchlorate impacts in the Bunker
Hill Basin shall terminate at the time the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control
Board determines that LMC is no longer required to supply replacement water to water
purveyors (which includes the City).
7
I:\ca\djm\Agreements\Lockheed Martin.Draft Agate 2 blending.mued.2.2.11.doc
Section 9. Notices. All notices or other communications under or in connection with the
Agreement shall be in writing and shall be given by (a) personal delivery, (b) telephone
facsimile, (c) overnight courier, or (d) U.S. mail. Such notices shall be addressed to the Parties
at the addresses set forth below:
Lockheed Martin Corporation (LMC) Municipal Utilities and Engineering Director
David Constable, Vice President City of Redlands
6801 Rockledge Dr., MP CLE610 P.O. Box 3005
Bethesda, Maryland 20817 Redlands, CA 92373
Changes may be made to the names and addresses of the person to whom notices or reports are
to be given by giving notice pursuant to this section.
WHEREFORE, this Agreement has been executed by the Parties as of the date first
written above in San Bernardino County, California.
CITY OF REDLANDS LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION
_____________________________ ________________________________
Pete Aguilar, Mayor David Constable, Vice President
ATTEST:
____________________________
Sam Irwin, City Clerk
From:Tom Barnes
To:Heather Dyer; Jane Usher; Elie, Steve; Ash Dhingra; Camille Castillo
Subject:Fwd: Sterling National Resource Center Environmental Impact Report
Date:Tuesday, January 19, 2016 4:02:27 PM
Just received this email.
Camille, please save a copy in the comment folder.
Tom
323-829-1221 cell
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Sterling National Resource Center Environmental Impact Report
From: Fred Yauger <fred@yauger.net>
To: Tom Barnes <TBarnes@ESASSOC.COM>
CC:
I have reviewed your report and do not find any significant impediments to proceeding with this project.
I urge this process move forward as quickly as possible to facilitate the path to construction. This facility is
important to the long term benefit of our region and I support it unequivocally.
Fred Yauger
7123 Amberwood Lane
Highland, CA 92346
Sent from my iPad
Comment Letter Yauger
TO: Heather Dyer
Water Resources Project Manager
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District
380 East Vanderbilt Way, San Bernardino, CA 92408
909-387-9256/ heatherd@sbvmwd.com
FROM: Anthony Serrano, Local Taxpayer
(909) 496-4733 Cell
DATE: Thursday, February 25, 2016
SUBJECT: Comments Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR)
Sterling Natural Resource Center
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
REQUEST
I am requesting the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) be “re-done” and “recirculated” pursuant to:
“Public Resources Code §15088.5(a)(4) Recirculation of an EIR Prior to Certification: (a) A lead agency is
required to recirculate an EIR when significant new information is added to the EIR after public notice is given of
the availability of the draft EIR for public review under Section 15087 but before certification. As used in this
section, the term "information" can include changes in the project or environmental setting as well as additional
data or other information. New information added to an EIR is not "significant" unless the EIR is changed in a
way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental
effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative)
that the project's proponents have declined to implement. "Significant new information" requiring recirculation
include, for example, a disclosure showing that: (4) The draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically
inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded. (Mountain
Lion Coalition v. Fish and Game Com. (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1043).”
Specific reasons for the request are provided and discussed below.
BACKGROUND
The “Background” section of the DEIR identifies the “proposed project would be located within three municipalities,
including the City of Highland, City of San Bernardino, and City of Redlands, and the unincorporated areas of San
Bernardino County.”
In addition, the “Project Description” section of the DEIR item number “5” states the following:”Refurbish and equip the
groundwater wells near the Rialto Channel to potentially supply groundwater to the Rialto Channel when
supplemental water is needed in the SAR for environment benefits.”
1. I support the proposed waste water recycling project but given the recent news articles concerning Flint, Michigan
and their water contamination with “lead poisoning” we need special consideration given to our immediate
situation,
2. Our groundwater has a long history for contamination due to plumes of trichloroethylene, perchlorate, and other
types of contamination but this information was not disclosed in the DEIR. My East Valley Water District website
reports: “The District produces 80% of our water supply from local groundwater wells. These wells are located
in the Bunker Hill Groundwater Basin.” Based on this information, every effort should be made to identify our
Comment Letter Serrano-2
sources of water supply i.e. groundwater, surface water, and State Water Project water, all potential contamination
for those sources, identify ways to mitigate the contamination, and
3. Now that we have the opportunity to “re-open” the discussion on surface, groundwater, and State Water Project
related contamination issues via the DEIR we need to take advantage of the new technologies and solutions to
cleanup the contamination issues once and for all! Everyone talks about a “comprehensive” solution….now is the
time!
Based on this information we need to update the DEIR to:
1. Identify and disclose past efforts to cleanup all types of groundwater contamination in the immediate area,
2. Develop a list for the top 10 types of groundwater contaminations in our area i.e. plumes of trichloroethylene,
plumes of perchlorate, etc.,
3. Identify the types of technology or solutions that were previously used to help mitigate those contaminations,
4. Identify the new types of technology or solutions that can now be used to help mitigate those contaminations,
5. Identify the types of screening processes to be used at the proposed waste water treatment plant to cleanup those
contaminations,
6. Make sure the new waste water treatment plant does not become contaminated with the current contaminants, and
7. Determine if the “sludge” by product contamination levels are legal to relocate or sell?
My comments and concerns for the following are:
1. No costs disclosed as required by Public Resources Code §21001(g) and Public Resources Code §15088.5(a)(4),
2. No disclosure of the East Valley Water District (EVWD) lawsuits against San Bernardino International Airport
(SBIAA),
3. No disclosure for the old and ongoing Lockheed Propulsion Co. plumes of trichloroethylene and plumes of
perchlorate.
4. No disclosure for the old and ongoing Mid-Valley Sanitary landfill plumes of perchlorate located in Rialto,
5. No disclosure for Governor Brown signing Senate Bill 88 during year 2015 for the State's new law "Consolidation
and Extension of Service"
6. No disclosure on EVWD’s decision to close down Plant 150 operations during October 2015,
7. Impact, if any, pending legislation AB1666 to help finance project?
I. No Costs Disclosed as required by Public Resources Code §21001(g) and Public Resources Code §15088.5(a)(4) -
The DEIR did not include any cost information but either the consultant is required to include the costs or the “Lead
Agency” is required. The two laws state the following:
1. Public Resources Code § 21001. ADDITIONAL LEGISLATIVE INTENT: The Legislature further finds and
declares that it is the policy of the state to: “(g) Require governmental agencies at all levels to consider
qualitative factors as well as economic and technical factors and long-term benefits and costs, in addition to
short-term benefits and costs and to consider alternatives to proposed actions affecting the environment,” and
2. Public Resources Code §15088.5(a)(4) Recirculation of an EIR Prior to Certification: (a) A lead agency is
required to recirculate an EIR when significant new information is added to the EIR after public notice is given of
the availability of the draft EIR for public review under Section 15087 but before certification. As used in this
section, the term "information" can include changes in the project or environmental setting as well as additional
data or other information. New information added to an EIR is not "significant" unless the EIR is changed in a
way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental
effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative)
that the project's proponents have declined to implement. "Significant new information" requiring recirculation
include, for example, a disclosure showing that: (4) The draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically
Comment Letter Serrano-2
inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded. (Mountain
Lion Coalition v. Fish and Game Com. (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1043).
Some of the reasons for costs concerns are:
1. April 28, 2010 - attached is a 2-page Highland Community News article dated April 28, 2010 titled: “Old pals
split over pump tax.” The article stated in part: “Water treatment plant - The board approved going out to bid
on the district’s planned water treatment plant. The district is getting a $3 million grant from the state, plus a
state loan of $8 million at no interest for 30 years. In addition the district plans to float a bond for the
additional $5 million needed to cover the cost of construction,”
Now we have been told via an EVWD Economic Impact Report dated March 2015 the proposed waste water
recycling facility may cost as much as $126M? The water treatment plant cost was approximately $16M but this
project will cost $126M plus more???
2. October 19, 2011 - attached is a 1-page Highland Community News article dated October 19, 2011 titled:
“Another piece of the Harmony puzzle told.” The article stated in part: “James Campbell of Orange County
and Pat Loy of the Lewis Operating Group have provided another bit of information on the Harmony project
planned for the vacant land east of Seven Oaks Dam. Meeting with San Bernardino Valley water Conservation
District Oct.12, they discussed a possible treatment plant for the project’s sewage. With cooperation with East
Valley Water District, the Conservation District and the city of Highland, a plant could be constructed to
provide tertiary treatment and then put the treated water into Conservation District percolation ponds.”
The local taxpayers in the City of Highland and local ratepayers of EVWD have been told via several Highland
Community News articles since year 2011 to date that the local ratepayers would not see any rate increase due to
the proposed waste water treatment facility but this information was not listed in the DEIR?
3. April 15, 2015 - attached is a 1-page letter from East Valley water District dated April 15, 2015 subject: “Water
and Sewer Will Serve letter for Tentative Tract Map 18871 (Harmony Project)” to Mr. Ben Macaluso, Vice
President Lewis Operating Corporation. The letter put Lewis Group on notice they are responsible for the $126M
in costs.
Based o this information, the DEIR needs to include this letter and responsible party for $126M of the costs?
II. No disclosure of the East Valley Water District (EVWD) lawsuits against San Bernardino International Airport
(SBIAA) - attached are copies of the lawsuits and proposed settelement agreement. No disclosure for the EVWD
lawsuit filed 10/29/2013 EVWD vs San Bernardino International Airport(SBIAA) and Inland Valley Development
Agency (IVDA) case No. CIVDS 1313090 regarding "avigation easement rights" case dismissed 1/9/2014; EVWD
filed new case 1/22/2014 with U.S. District Court case No. ED CV 14-00138 GAF SPx and District Court Dismissed
case; and EVWD filed a new case 7/15/2014 a Notice of Appeal to U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, case
No. 14-56146 and case is still ongoing. This litigation was not disclosed in the draft EIR in section 3.11 "NOISE" in
connection with airport being located within 2 miles (proposed site is less than a mile from SBIAA) and no discussion
regarding the pending litigation for "avigation easement rights" or noise impact from SBIAA was included,
III. No disclosure for the old and ongoing Lockheed Propulsion Co. plumes of trichloroethylene and plumes of
perchlorate - attached are copies for the following information:
1. Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board Cleanup and Abatement Orders for orders 94-37, 97-58, 01-56,
2. July 7, 2008 The Washington Times news article titled: “Lockheed: U.S. must pay for rocket-test cleanup,” and
3. Drinking Water news article titled: “Perchlorate-Rocket Fuel Pollution Strains Water Supply Prompts Health
Fears.”
IV. No disclosure for the old and ongoing Mid-Valley Sanitary landfill plumes of perchlorate located in Rialto -
The DEIR did not disclose the April 29, 2009: “Adoption of (1) Resolution No. R8-2009-0009, Authorizing the
Executive Officer to Enter into an Administrative Settlement Agreement with the County of San Bernardino et al, and
(2) Cleanup and Abatement Order No. R8-2009-0010, Superseding and Replacing Cleanup and Abatement Order No.
Comment Letter Serrano-2
R8-2003-0013 and R8-2004-0072 for San Bernardino County, Solid Waste Management Division, Mid-Valley
Sanitary Landfill Property.” Attached are copies of:
1. April 29, 2019 Resolution (7-pages), and
2. Settlement Team’s List of Witnesses and Summary of Testimony
V. No disclosure for Governor Brown signing Senate Bill 88 during year 2015 for the State's new law
"Consolidation and Extension of Service" - to reduce the number of existing water agencies....this will help mitigate
redundant executive/administrative staff and reduce costs by consolidating all water agencies under a regional concept
i.e. customer service, billing, accounting, and many other industries have merged and consolidated over the
years....now is the time for water agencies to consolidate and be more efficient and cost effective. Attached are copies
of:
1. February 5, 2016 Redlands Daily Facts news article titled: “How to oppose Redlands’ proposed water and
sewer rate increases” who is seeking a 45% rate increase!
2. 2-page Governor’s FACT SHEET water consolidation, and
3. Can we determine how much money can be saved, on an annual basis, by reducing the number of water agencies
under the SBVMWD and allow SBVMWD to provide all of the Executive/Administrative functions. These cost
savings can then be passed on to the rate payer by mitigating rate increases?
VI. No disclosure on EVWD’s decision to close down Plant 150 operations during October 2015 - how will this
impact the water supply to the project?
VII. Impact, if any, pending legislation AB1666 to help finance project? - attached is a copy of AB1666. The City of
Highland is proposing a “Mello-Roos” form of financing for the proposed Harmony Project, the project is requiring
on site water and sewer services, discussions have been ongoing in the City’s proposed Specific Plan to run a
connection line from the proposed Harmony Project site to connect to the proposed Sterling Natural Resource Center,
and all of these infrastructure costs are to be included in the proposed “Mello-Roos” financing. “Mello-Roos”
financing is a time-bomb in California and AB1666 has been introduced on January 14, 2016 in an effort to gain some
oversight and enforce annual reporting. The local taxpayers in the City of Highland oppose any “Mello-Roos”
financing because the local taxpayer becomes the guarantor for the bonds required for the “Mello-Roos.”
Thank you.
Comment Letter Serrano-2
Subject: FW: Anthony Serrano Inquiry re Lawsuit Settlement EVWD v SBI and SBVMWD: Notice
of Availability of the Draft EIR for the Sterling Natural Resource Center
Attachments: 2-9-2Q16 Dismissal EVWD v SBI Lawsuit Qocs.pdf
From: Anthony Serrano [mailto:anthonvaserranoCc~~mail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2016 12:22 PM
To: Jim Harris <jharris@sbdairport.com>
Cc: Larry Mainez <Imainez@citvofhi~hland.or~>; Kim Stater <kstater@citvofhi~hland.org>; Brandy Littleton
<blittleton@citvofhighland.or~>; Heather Dyer <heatherdC@sbvmwd.com>
Subject: Fwd: Anthony Serrano Inquiry re Lawsuit Settlement EVWD v SBI and SBVMWD: Notice of Availability of the
Draft EIR for the Sterling Natural Resource Center
2-10-2016: Jim -Good afternoon and I am following up on my e-mail sent to you dated December 23, 2015 re
the Notice Availability of the Draft EIR. As stated in my #3 bullet point to you listed in my e-mail is the EIR
provision for the "2-mile issue from an airport" for a proposed waste water treatment plant being constructed?
The proposed site for the waste water treatment plant is within 2 miles? Based on this information I thought it
would be important for you as the Project Manager for SBI to attend the scheduled meetings for the draft EIR?
Please consider the following:
1. I have cut/pasted the Highland Community News article dated January 28, 2016 and titled: "Settlement
announced in the EVWD vs. SBD lawsuit" concerning the "avigation easement rights" since the
proposed Sterling Natural Resource Center waste water recycling project is in direct path of the
"avigation easement rights" and the "2-mile within an airport" EIR rule is directly affected,
2. I have attached 4 court documents regarding the lawsuit CIVDS1313090 filed October 2013, SBI
demurrer filed December 2013, and the Dismissal filed January 9, 2Q14,
3. The case was dismissed two years ago but is only being announced now?
4. Unfortunately two pending draft environmental impact reports (City of Highland and EVWD) DID
NOT make any disclosures for this pending litigation?
I see you have a schedule Board Meeting today at 3:OOpm and this issue is on the agenda.
I am sending this letter to you via e-mail and will call your office at (909) 382-4100 to discuss.
Thank you.
Anthony Serrano
(9Q9) 496-4733 Cell
,..
• story
• Comments (2)
Comment Letter - Serrano Emails
Print
Create a hardcopy of this page
Font Size:
flaf3t11tfnr~i, =.._,
a rger #ont size
Posted: Thursday, January 28, 2016 1128 am ~ Updated: 2:43 pm, Thu Jan 28, 2016.
2 comments
m Posted on Jan 28 2015
by Charles Robsrts
The East Valley Water District had filed suit against San Bernardino International Airport seeking relief from a flight regulation that
prevented most construction where the District planned to build a new treatment plant on Sterling Avenue.
On Wednesday, Jan. 27, it was announced at the EVWD Board meeting that an agreement had been reached and the suit was being
dropped.
The EVWD had ultimately decided on an alternate location for the plant, called the Sterling Natural Resource Center, choosing a Del
Rosa site, but keeping the name.
However the suit was allowed to remain to make the land more attractive to potential buyers.
Details of the settlement were nat released.
At the same time, the San Bernardino International Airport Authority Board also met on Jan. 27 and had a closed door session with the
lawsuit as one of the topics to be discussed. However, when the Board emerged from the session, there was no announcement
concerning the EVWD suit.
The court website shows that a request for dismissal was filed on Jan. 6. On Jan. 9, there is a recorded notice of withdrawal of the
lawsuit.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Anthony Serrano <anthonyaserrano(a,~mail.com>
Date: Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 1:46 PM
Subject: Fwd: Anthony Serrano Inquiry re San Bernardino International Airport and SBVMWD: Notice of
Availability of the Draft EIR for the Sterling Natural Resource Center
To: 'harris ,sbdairport.coin
12-23-2015: Jim -Good afternoon. The receptionist provided me with your e-mail address and advised me that
you are the project manager for projects involving the San Bernardino International Airport.
1. The reason for my e-mail is I wanted to make sure you received a copy of the December 20, 2015
"Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR for the Sterling Natural Resource Center" see below,
2. The proposed $126M waste water treatment facility called the Sterling Natural Resource Center could
be built near your San Bernardino International Airport,
3. I am sure that you are familiar with California Environmental Quality Act, Cal. Pub. Res. Code
§ 21000, et seq. ("CEQA") and EIR item "#9 HAZARDS and HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. How
will the new facility impact: e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or a public use airport,
would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? t
t~ For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard
for people residing or working in the project area?"
4. The San Bernardino International Airport represents a potential and angaing growth vehicle for
the community. I would hate to see any project have an adverse affect on the airport and future
growth for the community,
Comment Letter - Serrano Emails
5. The Notice information is listed below including the two planned community meeting dates
January 14 and 19, 2016. Final questions are due by February 1, 2016, and
6. I simply wanted to bring this important issue to your attention?
am sending this information to you via e-mail and will call your office to followup.
Thank you.
Anthony Serrano
7517 Mr. McDuff's Way
Highland, CA 92346
(909) 496-4733 Cell
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: San Bernardino Valley MWD <webmaster(a~sbvmwd.com>
Date: Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 8:31 AM
Subject: SBVMWD: Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR for the Sterling Natural Resource Center
To: anthonyaserrano(a~gmail.com
Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR for the Sterling Natural Resource Center
The San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District (Valley District) as the Lead Agency has prepared a Draft
Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for construction of
the Sterling Natural Resource Center (SNRC).
Post Date: 1212012015 9:02 AM
1'~ 't '• '''1 ~ ~,~
., ,, ~
Date: December 17, 2015
To: Responsible and Trustee Agencies and Interested Parties
Subject: Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Report
Project: Sterling Natural Resource Center
Lead Agency: San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District
Review Period: December 17, 2015, through February 1, 2016
Project Location: The Sterling Natural Resource Center is proposed to be located in the City of Highland
between East 5th and East 6th Streets at North Del Rosa Drive
Project Description: The San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District (Valley District) as the Lead
Agency has prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for construction of the Sterling Natural Resource Center (SNRC). The
proposed project would construct a wastewater treatment plant and related administration facilities in the City
of Highland to treat wastewater generated within the East Valley Water District (EVWD) service area, which is
entirely within the Valley District service area. Currently, pursuant to an agreement, EVWD conveys that
wastewater to the City of San Bernardino for secondary treatment at the San Bernardino Water Reclamation
Comment Letter - Serrano Emails
Subject: FW: Anthony Serrano Inquiry to Kamron Saremi re Lockheed Propulsion Co. Pollution in
San Bernardino County, CA
Attachments: GeoTracker.website
Fram: Anthony Serrano [mailto:anthonyaserrano@gmail.com)
Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 2:57 PM
Ta: Saremi, Kamron@Waterboards
Cc: Heather Dyer
Subject: Fwd: Anthony Serrano Inquiry to Kamron Saremi re Lockheed Propulsion Co. Pollution in San BernardinoCounty, CA
2-22-2016: Kamron -thank you for taking my telephone call and I appreciate your explaining your 30 year
history of managing the Lockheed Propulsion Co. contamination issues for the: 1) plume of trichloroethylene,
and 2) plume of perchlorate.
1. I have forwarded you a copy of my e-mail dated February 9, 2016, sent to Ms. Duarte in the US EPA'soffice in Los Angeles with the three attached articles,
2. Ms. Duarte forwarded my e-mail to Kevin (415) 972-3176 in the EPA's Region 9 Office in San
Francisco,
3. Kevin called me, explained that he had worked with you on this project for many years, your office hastaken the lead, and he provided me with your name and office telephone number, and
4. As I explained we have two separate draft Environmental Impact Reports: a) City of Highland, and b)
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District (SBVMWD); but neither consultant on the EIR's
disclosed the "Lockheed" history, how our community is impacted, and what steps need to be taken toavoid any future problems as in Flint, Michigan with "lead poisoning in the water?" We do not want
any trichloroethylene and/or perchlorate poisoning!
My four concerns are:
1. How many more years will the "Lockheed" contamination issues affect our water resources in the City
of Highland, Mill Creek Spreading Grounds, City of Mentone, etc.? What methods are being used tomaintain the contamination? What happens if the contamination levels exceed safe levels? Who isresponsible to manage/monitor/correct the contamination levels?
2. SBVMWD is the lead agency on the EIR, we need a new waste water treatment facility for our local
use.......what types of screening processes are used for trichloroethylene and perchlorate? Do those
screenings work? What about the "sludge" created from the trichloroethylene and Perchlorate? What arethe problems with this "sludge" byproduct?
3. Is Lockheed mandated to cover any portion of our future costs to protect our local water resources orbuild-out a new waste water treatment facility? The new facility will continue to screen out the
trichloroethylene and perchlorate.....so Iwould think that a portion of the cost for this new waste watertreatment facility by SBVMWD should be paid by Lockheed?
4. We just need good planning to avoid the new $126M facility from being contaminated by any
trichloroethylene and Perchlorate. Since our EIR consultant did not cover this issue....I have raised it.
I have copied Ms. Heather Dyer, Project Manager at SBVMWD, on this e-mail.
Comment Letter - Serrano Emails
Thank you.
Anthony Serrano
(909) 496-4733 Cell
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Anthony Serrano <anthonyaserrano(a~~mail.com>
Date: Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 4:38 PM
Subject: Anthony Serrano Inquiry re Lockheed Propulsion Co. Pollution in San Bernardino County, CA
To: duarte.romie(cer~,epa.gov
2-9-2016: Ms. Duarte -thank you for returning my telephone call. Attached are three short articles regarding the
Lockheed pollution issue and specific legal references that should help you locate someone who can provide
some up to date info?
Anthony Serrano
(909496-4733 Ce11
Comment Letter - Serrano Emails
Subject: FW: Anthony Serrano Inquiry to SBVMWD and Feb 17, 2016 1% Finance Funding
Expansion Announcement but EVWD and SBVMWD Project Not On List?
Attacl~enents: 2-17-2016 pr22716_cwsrf_finance.pdf; 421616 3 attachment_a.pdf
From: Anthony Serrano [anthonyaserrano@gmail.comJ
Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 8:54 AM
To: Heather Dyer
Cc: Kim Stater; Larry Mainez; Brandy Littleton
Subject: Anthony Serrano Inquiry to SBVMWD and Feb 17, 2016 1% Finance Funding Expansion Announcement but
EVWD and SBVMWD Project Not On List?
2-29-2Q16: Heather -Good morning! See following:
1. 1-page Notice dated 2-17-2016 and titled: "State Water Board Authorizes $960 Million in 1% Financing For Recycled
Water Projects," and
2. The list of the 36 eligible projects and titled: "ATTACHMENT A -Division of Financial Assistance Water Recycling
Funding Program Applications Submitted in Response to Resolution 2014-0015 Projects Recommended for Receiving 1%
Financing."
The Notice also states: "The new resolution allows the Division of Financial Assistance to approve 1 percent financing for
all eligible recycling projects that have filed a complete application by the Dec. 2, 2015, deadline."
Guess what? No listing for EVWD or SBVMWD as part of the 36 eligible projects are listed?
Did you decide NOT to pursue the 1%financing opportunity?
Please advise.
Thank you.
Anthony Serrano
(909) 496-4733
Comment Letter - Serrano Emails
CHAPTER 11
Responses to Comments
As stated in CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15132 and 15362, the Final EIR must contain
information summarizing the comments received on the Draft EIR, either verbatim or in
summary; a list of persons commenting; and the response of the Lead Agency to the comments
received. Twenty-two comment letters or emails were received by the Valley District in response
to the Draft EIR. This chapter provides the Valley District’s responses to these comments..
These responses do not significantly alter the proposed project, change the Draft EIR’s
significance conclusions, or result in a conclusion such that would result in significantly more
severe environmental impacts. Instead, the information presented in the responses to comments
“merely clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modifications” in the Draft EIR, as is
permitted by CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(b).
Regarding recirculation of the Draft EIR, CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, requires the Lead
Agency to recirculate an EIR only when significant new information is added to the EIR after
public notice is given of the availability of the Draft EIR for public review. New information
added to an EIR is not significant unless the EIR has changed in a way that deprives the public of
a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse, environmental effect of the
project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect that the project’s proponents have
declined to implement (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15088.5). In summary, significant new
information consists of: (1) disclosure of a new significant impact; (2) disclosure of a substantial
increase in the severity of an environmental impact; (3) disclosure of a feasible project alternative
or mitigation measure considerably different from the others previously analyzed that would
clearly lessen environmental impacts of the project but the project proponent declines to adopt it;
and/or (4) the Draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature
that meaningful public review and comment were precluded (CEQA Guidelines, Section
15088.5). Recirculation is not required where, as stated above, the new information added to the
EIR merely clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modifications in an adequate EIR (CEQA
Guidelines, Section 15088.5).
Some of the responses below refer to and impose further mitigation measures, as described in
Chapter 12, Clarifications and Modifications, of this Final EIR. These mitigation measures were
proposed by commenters and, pursuant to CEQA, the Valley District imposed those measures to
further mitigate for potentially significant impacts wherever feasible or imposed the measures to
further reduce already less-than-significant impacts. Ultimately, the significance conclusions
presented in the Draft EIR do not change even with the imposition of these new mitigation
measures. Moreover, because these mitigation measures address ways to implement the proposed
project and do not propose the construction of new facilities, none of these new mitigation
measures would result in any potentially significant impacts of their own.
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-1 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter – U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
Comment USFWS-1
The comment describes the project and contents of the DEIR.
Response to USFWS-1
Valley District appreciates the comment’s summary of the status of the Santa Ana sucker and the
strategy Valley District has adopted to mitigate the project’s impacts to the species. The comment
accurately captures the complex nature of the threats to the SAS and its habitat and the challenges
faced by agencies that endeavor to mitigate the effects of projects that impact the Santa Ana River
watershed.
Valley District agrees with the observation that the volume of perennial low flow in the Santa
Ana River is not the only factor affecting the long-term viability of the SAS. Mitigation measures
that address a variety of those factors stand the best chance of ameliorating impacts to and
facilitating recovery of the species.
As noted by the comment, Valley District has proposed a comprehensive approach to mitigation
of impacts to the sucker that will serve to reduce the risk to the species in the Santa Ana River
watershed and provide significant conservation benefit to the species. The HCP or the HMMP
will address specific degraded conditions in the river and provide a buffer against catastrophic
events that result in death of multiple individual members of the species, before the project
reduces flows in the river. The USFWS’ expertise will inform the development and
implementation of the HCP or the HMMP and contribute to a robust plan for conserving the SAS
and putting it on the path to recovery. This mitigation strategy will enable Valley District to take
advantage of the locally-produced water the project will make available, thereby reducing
reliance on imported water and the areas of imported water origin.
Valley District appreciates the USFWS’s regard for the water supply needs of the San Bernardino
Valley and the efforts of Valley District and other local agencies, especially those that will
partner in the HCP, to address the myriad factors affecting SAS mortality and fitness. Valley
District also appreciates the recognition by the USFWS that through implementation of this
project we seek to “chart a course towards the recovery of the species” (USFWS p. 3). It is the
goal of Valley District that the SNRC HMMP lay the foundation for the larger, more
comprehensive conservation strategy of the HCP. Additionally, Valley District concurs with the
USFWS stated hope that this mitigation strategy “will be emulated by other water projects in the
San Bernardino Valley” in order to harness the collective power of partnerships and economies of
scale to make real progress towards recovering this species. Valley District looks forward to
working with the Service during the consultation process and in finalizing and implementing the
HCP and HMMP.
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-2 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
Comment USFWS-2
The comment provides description of the SAS, states that the project would divert water from the
SAR which supports the listed SAS, and notes critical habitat for the SAS and other species in the
vicinity of the project.
Response to USFWS-2
Valley District agrees with the comment’s identification of critical habitat and the project’s
reduction of flows in the SAR. The DEIR acknowledges that the project would divert water from
the SAR, and evaluates impacts to SAS beginning on 3.4-48. Mitigation Measure BIO-3 outlines
several conservation measures to improve habitat conditions within the segment of the SAR
directly below the RIX discharge, and describes the project’s participation in the Upper Santa
Ana River HCP. Valley District believes the efforts that will be pursued under Mitigation
Measure BIO-3 will contribute greatly to the conservation and recovery of the SAS over the long
term.
Please see Responses to Comments CBD-7, CBD-8, and CBD-11.
Comment USFWS-3
The comment states sediment transport in the SAR must be considered when managing SAS
habitat.
Response to USFWS-3
Valley District agrees that sediment transport in the SAR is a factor that must be considered in
managing SAS habitat. Accordingly, Mitigation Measure BIO-3 includes conservation measure
SAS-4 that would introduce high pulse flows periodically to the SAR to move sand deposited by
storm events off the cobble substrate. Existing conditions are such that during storm events, sand
is deposited in depths ranging from inches to several feet over a base of gravel and cobble. This
effectively reduces the availability of appropriate spawning and foraging substrate for weeks or
even months while the continuous discharge of clean water from the wastewater treatment plants
transports the sand off the gravel bed. Mitigation Measure BIO-3 proposes to speed up this
process through artificial creation of high-flow pulse events which have been modeled by the
USGS on Valley District’s behalf, thus increasing the temporal availability of suitable habitat for
SAS. Habitat condition triggers and success criteria for this Mitigation Measure will be developed
in coordination with the USFWS, with technical support by USGS, such that maximum benefit
can be provided to the SAS habitat to increase spawning and foraging habitat availability,
specifically during key times of the year when exposed gravel and cobble is crucial to successful
reproduction and recruitment of the species. The ultimate goal of this Mitigation Measure is to
increase the temporal availability of gravel/cobble substrate despite a reduction in continuous
discharge.
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-3 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
Comment USFWS-4
The comment suggests that the Reduced Discharge Study be updated to reflect a more
conservative methodology.
Response to USFWS-4
Valley District has included an Update to the Reduced Discharge Study in the Final EIR in
Appendix H that modifies the methodology consistent with the suggestion made by the USFWS.
The results show a slightly greater impact to wetted area and average velocity area but are not to a
level that would preclude occupancy of the impacted reach by the SAS or Arroyo chub.
As shown in Figure A1 of the Study Update (see below), USGS data collected on a monthly basis
in 2015 show a wide variety of water depth in the lower study area reach. The USGS data show
that the data provided in the DEIR for the lower reach on Figure 3.4-3 are conservatively low.
In recognition that the relationship of the surface water flow and groundwater contribution in the
SAR is complex, and to ensure a conservative analysis, the updated Reduced Discharge Study
provides results of the hydrology model assuming zero contribution from groundwater. The
results are summarized in the Table 3 below (from Appendix H). The results show slightly greater
impacts compared to the earlier analysis assuming groundwater contribution. The revised analysis
shows a 7 percent average decrease in wetted area as opposed to 6 percent in the initial model
results. Also, maximum change in velocity and depth are similar to the initial model results.
TABLE 3
MAXIMUM AND MEAN CHANGE IN AREA WITHIN A VELOCITY OR DEPTH ZONE, AND CHANGE IN
WETTED CHANNEL AREA UNDER A LOWER BOUND AND MEDIAN FLOW SCENARIO, FOR A 6 MGD
REDUCTION AT RIX
Flow scenario Reach
Max. change (±) in
area of a velocity or
depth zone
Mean change in
area of a velocity
or depth zone
Change in
wetted area
over existing
condition
Average
change in
wetted area
over existing
condition
Lower Bound
flow scenario
Upper 8% 2% -5%
-7% Middle 7% 2% -12%
Lower 11% 3% -4%
Median flow
scenario
Upper 7% 2% -3%
-4% Middle 8% 2% -7%
Lower 10% 3% -3%
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-4 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
Santa Ana River Low Flow Study, D150005
Figure A1
Revised flow data used for existing and proposed conditions
SOURCE: ESA and USGS
Note: solid markers denote measured data points;
hollow markers denote interpolated or extrapolated data
11. Responses to Comments
The conclusions of the Study Update are that the contribution of groundwater in the lower study
area reach is complex and variable. However, the data do show that the river becomes a gaining
stream to some varying degree as it slows and enters the lower study area reach above the MWD
crossing. The updated study conducts the analysis assuming zero contribution from groundwater
and finds similarly minimal impacts.
Mitigation Measure BIO-3 has been modified to include SAS-7 as shown below to include
hydrologic monitoring of the SAR below RIX to better understand the seasonal and diurnal
fluctuations in river flow.
BIO-3: Disturbance to Santa Ana sucker
• SAS-7: Monitoring. The HMMP will outline a monitoring program to collect
hydrology data in the segment of river between the RIX discharge and Mission
Boulevard. The data will include flow velocity and depth.
Comment USFWS-5
The comment states that SAS prefer (and that the invasive red alga apparently does not prefer)
higher velocity water which is not common in the SAR under existing conditions.
Response to USFWS-5
The comment accurately notes that under existing conditions higher velocity water is not
common in the SAR. To improve upon the existing habitat conditions, Mitigation Measure BIO-3
includes conservation measure SAS-1 that would introduce microhabitat enhancements within the
SAR below the RIX discharge to increase the prevalence of high velocity river segments around
habitat features, such as large woody debris and boulders followed by slower-moving pools and
riffles. Mitigation Measure BIO-3 aims to create a series of high-velocity scour areas and
subsequent pools and riffles throughout the reach impacted by this project thus creating linked
microhabitat within the mainstem that will provide refugia, foraging, and spawning habitat for
SAS while reducing suitable flow conditions for the red alga.
Comment USFWS-6
The comment states that the RIX discharges are trending downward over the last decade and that
groundwater conditions influence SAR flows and requests that the DEIR evaluate potential
impacts to the SAR from future groundwater fluctuations.
Response to USFWS-6
As suggested by the comment, the Reduced Discharge Study has been updated to reflect a more
conservative contribution to the SAR from groundwater based on the recognition that
groundwater management in the future may affect SAR flows. The Study Update is included in
Appendix H. However, the future condition and impact to the river from groundwater
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-6 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
management actions is speculative. The Study Update revises the analysis to include river depth
data collected by USGS in 2014 and 2015. The USGS data shows high variability in depth in the
lower reach of the study area but generally support the observation that groundwater and/or
underflow contributes to the surface flows in this reach. The USGS data were uniformly greater
than the measured observations in the Reduced Discharge Study, suggesting that the Reduced
Discharge Study’s conclusions were conservatively low. Valley District has included a
groundwater infiltration monitoring component to its ongoing research with the USGS. Beginning
in July 2015, the USGS began collecting monthly data to assess the surface flow and groundwater
infiltration interaction between the Rialto Channel and Mission Blvd. Preliminary results of this
study are expected by the end of 2016 and will inform decisions by the HCP and others as to the
priority conservation activities to benefit the species in this reach.
Comment USFWS-7
The comment requests that the DEIR evaluate impacts of diurnal fluctuations in RIX discharges.
Response to USFWS-7
The Reduced Discharge Study Update describes SAR depth data collected during day time hours.
Recognizing that river flows react to diurnal flow patterns, daily low flow periods create
substantially lower depths than reflected in the Study. Valley District does not have authority
over the operation of the RIX discharges. Although flow equalization may improve habitat
conditions for the SAS, implementation of this operational modification is not within the
authority of Valley District at this time.
However, USGS is conducting an evaluation of flows that is expected to be completed in late
2016. The study is expected to include an examination of diurnal fluctuations in RIX discharges.
Once complete, that study can be used by Valley District, the USFWS, CDFW, and the other
partners in the HCP to refine operations and implementation of the components of the HCP so as
to address diurnal fluctuations in RIX discharges in a manner that will benefit the SAS.
Comment USFWS-8
The comment states that microhabitat improvements will need to consider each life stage to
develop measureable, achievable habitat enhancement goals.
Response to USFWS-8
Valley District agrees that each life stage of the SAS must be considered in order to achieve
habitat enhancement goals. The mitigation measure commits Valley District to the preparation of
an HMMP that will outline implementation methodology and success criteria for each life stage
habitat requirements. The microhabitat enhancements would be one component in a broader
mitigation strategy in consultation with the wildlife agencies. The DEIR concludes that as one
component of a broad mitigation strategy, any microhabitat enhancement implemented in
coordination with the wildlife agencies provide benefits compared to existing conditions. Valley
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-7 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
District is working with several agencies to perform statistical analysis of existing datasets for the
Big Tujunga and San Gabriel River populations as well as with the USGS who conducted the
Santa Ana River baseline survey in September 2015. The focus of this analysis will be on
utilization of key habitat features such as pools and riffles and specific variables related to those
features such as size, depth, and distance to riparian cover. This analysis will be performed for all
larval, juvenile, and adult life stages. In addition, the USGS is in the process of developing a
Habitat Suitability Model based on the 2015 Santa Ana River data which will be completed in
summer 2016. The results of these analyses will be used during the development of the HMMP to
make informed decisions about success criteria for mitigation measures. Valley District
appreciates and acknowledges USFWS’ offer to assist in this process.
Comment USFWS-9
The comment asks how the flushing flow events would be coordinated with the City of San
Bernardino and requests that a hydrologic model be prepared that estimates the effects and trigger
conditions of the flushing flows.
Response to USFWS-9
Flushing flows proposed under conservation measure SAS-4 would be implemented by the City
of San Bernardino in coordination with Valley District as agreed upon in a Memorandum of
Agreement between the two parties. Valley District will negotiate the arrangement with the City
to support mutually beneficial regional objectives. Table 2-9 of the DEIR recognizes that an
agreement with the City of San Bernardino is necessary to implement some of the measures.
Valley District may also utilize groundwater wells to implement SAS-4.
The Reduced Discharge Study describes the relationship between velocities and sediment
transport. The cobble substrate in the 6,000 feet below RIX occurs due to the higher velocities
caused by the gradient. Currently, as noted in the comment, storm flows bring sediment-laden
water through the river corridor and deposit sand on the river bed in depths ranging from inches
to several feet over a base of gravel and cobble. This effectively reduces the availability of
appropriate spawning and foraging substrate for weeks or even months while the continuous
discharge of clean water from the wastewater treatment plants transports the sand off the gravel
bed. Mitigation Measure BIO-3 proposes to speed up this process through artificial creation of
high-flow pulse events which have been modeled by the USGS on Valley District’s behalf, thus
increasing the temporal availability of suitable habitat for SAS. Habitat condition triggers and
success criteria for this Mitigation Measure will be developed in coordination with the USFWS,
with technical support by USGS, such that maximum benefit can be provided to the SAS habitat
to increase spawning and foraging habitat availability, specifically during key times of the year
when exposed gravel and cobble is crucial to successful reproduction and recruitment of the
species. The ultimate goal of this Mitigation Measure is to increase the temporal availability of
gravel/cobble substrate despite a reduction in continuous discharge. The DEIR concludes that as
one component of a broad mitigation strategy, providing the ability to introduce periodic flushing
flows, implemented in coordination with the wildlife agencies, provides benefits compared to
existing conditions, while not fully offsetting the adverse effects of a reduction in flows.
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-8 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
Comment USFWS-10
The comment suggests that the use of supplemental cool water supplied by one or more wells
along the Rialto Channel should be done during a longer portion of the year.
Response to USFWS-10
Mitigation Measure BIO-3 provides the mechanism to introduce groundwater into the Rialto
Channel to benefit habitat. The goal of this measure is to increase the temporal availability of
suitable habitat by reducing water temperatures in the summer to a level below the tolerance
threshold of the species. The use of this measure would be on an appropriate scale related to the
level of project impact and refined in coordination with the wildlife agencies through the
permitting process and development of the HMMP. Success criteria and a monitoring plan for
this mitigation measure will be included in the HMMP. The DEIR concludes that as one
component of a broad mitigation strategy, providing supplemental water during the summer
months in coordination with the wildlife agencies provides benefits compared to existing
conditions and is commensurate with the scale of project-level effects. If appropriate, Valley
District will take advantage of future opportunities to consider supplementing existing flows with
cool groundwater during a larger portion of the year, likely through implementation of the HCP
conservation strategy.
Comment USFWS-11
The comment states that the use of cooler water may decrease the abundance of invasive non-
native alga, which would benefit the sucker.
Response to USFWS-11
The DEIR concludes that as one component of a broad mitigation strategy, providing
supplemental water during the summer months in coordination with the wildlife agencies
provides benefits compared to existing conditions. Although red alga is a concern in the areas
downstream of the RIX discharge, the intent is that introduction of colder water in the Rialto
Channel will have temperature-reducing effects downstream, which could help hinder growth of
red alga. Based on coordination with the USFWS and other experts, Valley District also believes
that high flow pulse events, as proposed in Mitigation Measure BIO-3, may also be used as a tool
to control the growth of the red alga. Precise formulation strategies to control factors that
adversely affect the SAS and its habitat, like red alga, will also be a key component of the HCP
and the HMMP.
Comment USFWS-12
The comment states that it is important that any project impacts to SBKR and its designated
critical habitat be considered in the context of the long-term persistence of the SBKR population
as necessary to the survival and recovery of the sub-species.
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-9 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
Response to USFWS-12
Valley District appreciates and shares the concern for the SBKR – although there has been
significant focus on efforts to protect and conserve the SAS, it is also important that impacts to
the SKBR, including impacts that may result from efforts to benefit the SAS, be addressed. To
address potential significant impacts to the SBKR, the DEIR includes Mitigation Measure BIO-2
which commits Valley District to direct consultation with CDFW and USFWS for potential
impacts to SBKR and other listed species impacted in City Creek. This consultation would be
conducted directly and not through the Upper SAR HCP. Valley District is committed to conduct
additional future site-specific surveys and appropriate consultation with CDFW and/or USFWS,
the results of which will be used to determine proper mitigation for impacted species. Valley
District is also committed to a 1:1 mitigation ratio for temporary habitat impacts resulting from
construction, and a 3:1 ratio for permanent impacts to species associated with affected alluvial fan
habitat, including the SBKR. It is Valley District’s goal to provide enhancement of SBKR habitat
near the area if appropriate to achieve maximum ecological value to the species, in coordination
with the Wildlife Agencies. However, if onsite enhancement is not possible, Valley District will
seek to obtain and manage high-quality habitat or an area with the potential to become high-
quality habitat through additional management adjacent to the impact area and within designated
critical habitat. Additionally, Valley District will add a subsection to Mitigation Measure BIO-2
requiring pre-construction trapping and relocation of the San Bernardino kangaroo rat in
accordance with accepted protocol, if determined necessary by the USFWS during the Section 7
consultation process.
Please see Responses to Comments CDFW-1, CBD-5, CBD-9, CBD-10, and CBD-12.
Comment USFWS-13
The comment suggests the FEIR include a regional groundwater basin assessment for City Creek
and Santa Ana River in the assessment of potential changes to the riparian plant community and
how those changes will affect flycatcher, vireo and their critical habitats.
Response to USFWS-13
It is also important to note that part of the HMMP proposed for this project is a commitment for
non-native vegetation management within the area of project impacts, in perpetuity. The purpose
of this measure is to decrease the competitive stress experienced by native vegetation in the
presence of non-native vegetation as a means to offset potential stress from the proposed reduced
water supply, making it likely that the riparian vegetation community will remain healthy and
robust. Because the mitigation measure proposes to manage for native regrowth in areas of non-
native removal, it is unlikely there will be a significant decrease in the amount of native
vegetation within the project impact area even taking into account a reduction in water supply
since natives use less water than non-native species. In other words, Valley District is committed
to acre for acre replacement (i.e. replacing each acre of non-native riparian vegetation that will be
removed with an acre of native riparian vegetation) within a geographic area to be determined
during the permitting processes with the Wildlife agencies. Valley District also offers the
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-10 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
financial commitment to maintain these acres in perpetuity once established. Additionally, there
will likely be an increase in native riparian vegetation in Rialto Channel and City Creek.
Therefore, the potential impact to riparian vegetation can be expected to be minimal.
The addition of water to Rialto Channel during summer months as proposed in Mitigation
Measure BIO-3, and perennial water to City Creek, will increase the amount and/or quality of
riparian habitat within these two tributaries to the Santa Ana River. Appropriate riparian habitat
in these geographical locations will augment the geographic distribution and availability of
suitable habitat for vireo and increase the amount of habitat located in the existing vicinity of
known flycatcher occupancy at the base of the San Bernardino Mountains. Valley District
believes these potential benefits to the species and their critical habitats offset the small loss or
degradation to riparian habitat that may result from reduced discharge.
Please see Response to Comment OCWD-1 and OCWD-2.
Comment USFWS-14
The comment suggests that an assessment of impacts to woolly-star habitat and other special
status plants, and an appropriate strategy to offset them be included in the FEIR.
Response to USFWS-14
The DEIR includes strategies to offset impacts to special status plants, in recognition that
installation of a discharge structure within City Creek could affect plant species. Mitigation
Measure BIO-1 commits Valley District to conducting a focused botanical survey prior to any
construction in City Creek, Redlands Basins, and/or the East Twin Creek Spreading Grounds.
Based on the results of that survey and in consultation with USFWS and/or CDFW, Valley
District will develop and implement an impact minimization and compensation strategy to ensure
that impacts to special status plants are less than significant.
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-11 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter - California Department of Fish and Wildlife
(CDFW)
Comment CDFW-1
The comment suggests that the mitigation inappropriately defers data collection efforts and
recommends that Valley District conduct focused surveys for the sensitive species identified as
having the potential to occur onsite in order to adequately describe impacts and propose specific
and enforceable compensatory mitigation. CDFW further recommends that once surveys are
complete and specific and enforceable mitigation is formulated, the District recirculate the DEIR
for public review.
Response to CDFW-1
Valley District shares the commenter’s concern regarding the potential impacts construction and
operation of the project may have on sensitive species. That concern, however, is precisely why
Valley District has chosen an approach to mitigation of those impacts that ensures the formulation
of specific mitigation measures is based on the most up-to-date information possible, which will
increase the effectiveness of the final mitigation strategy.
A biological resources site survey (summarized in Appendix C of the DEIR) was prepared for the
DEIR, which assessed all potential impact locations described in the Project Description, and the
DEIR appropriately inventories all potentially impacted species in Tables 3.4-2 and 3.4-3. A
habitat assessment and vegetation map was prepared for the entire area of impact in City Creek
and East Twin Creek Spreading Grounds (Figure 3.4-1b and 3.4-1c) ). The DEIR acknowledges
the potential presence of SBKR and avian species in City Creek and East Twin Creek Spreading
Grounds based on the site visits and from occurrence data provided in the California Natural
Diversity Data Base (CNDDB). In response to comments received on the DEIR, additional
species occurrence data in City Creek has been included. As shown in Figure 11-1, SBKR and
rare plants have been found on the upper ledges of the river channel, mostly in areas where
channel maintenance has not been conducted recently by the SBCFCD. However, near the
confluence of City Creek and the SAR, SBKR have been identified near the low flow channel
that may be affected by the project.
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-12 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri,DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics,CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX,Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo,and the GIS User Community
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*#*#*#*#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
!(8!(2!(7
!(3
!(6!(4
!(5
!(3
!(1
!(3
!(3
Baseline Street
B
o
u
l
d
e
r
A
v
e
n
u
e
§¨¦210
5th Street
Al
a
b
a
m
a
S
t
r
e
e
t
Highland Avenue
Sterling Natural Resource Center . 150005Figure 11-1Species Occurrence Data
SOURCE: ESRI, 2015
Survey Area
Project Alignment
Vegetation and Land Use - City Creek
Buckwheat Scrub
Mulefat Thickets
Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub
Disturbed Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub
Southern Cottonwood-Willow Riparian Forest
Developed
NDDB Species Inventory
!(1 California satintail
!(2 Parry's spineflower
!(3 San Bernardino kangaroo rat
!(4 San Diego desert woodrat
!(5 Santa Ana River woollystar
!(6 northwestern San Diego pocket mouse
!(7 western mastiff bat
!(8 western yellow batCFWO Species
#*San Bernardino kangaroo rat
#*least Bell's vireo
Pa
t
h
:
J
:
\
G
I
S
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
1
5
x
x
x
x
\
D
1
5
0
0
0
5
_
E
V
W
D
\
T
a
s
k
\
F
i
g
1
1
-
1
_
S
p
e
c
i
e
s
O
c
c
u
r
r
e
n
c
e
.
m
x
d
,
r
t
3
/
1
/
2
0
1
6
0 1,000
Feet
11. Responses to Comments
This page left intentionally blank
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-14 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
The DEIR defines the project discharge structures in Figures 2-7a through 2-7d, which are also
attached to this response for ease of review. The discharge structure in City Creek would occur in
a previously disturbed side of the channel. Figure 11-2 shows a recent Google Earth image of the
location as completely devoid of vegetation. In the same image as supported by the vegetation
map in the DEIR (Figure 3.4-1b), the center of City Creek is populated with mulefat thickets.
This same area is included as an aerial photograph in Figure 2-7a. The vegetation visible in
Figure 2-7a is significantly different than the more recent aerial image from Google Earth.
Similarly, the low flow channel is in a different location. This emphasizes the need to conduct
surveys as close to the time of impact as possible to get an accurate assessment of project impacts
within the dynamic and ever-changing creek channel.
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-15 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
Sterling Natural Resource Center . 150005
Figure 11-2
City Creek Aerial Image
SOURCE: Google Earth, 2016
B
o
u
l
d
e
r
A
v
e
0 100
Feet
11. Responses to Comments
The DEIR recognizes that within the impacted areas within City Creek there is the potential for
sensitive plant and animal species to occur. For example, construction of the discharge facility
within either City Creek and/or East Twin Creek Spreading Grounds would result in
approximately 2,000 square feet of temporary disturbance to RAFSS and approximately 1,000
square feet of permanent disturbance. Once discharged into City Creek, the perennial flow would
convert a corridor of the existing mulefat and RAFSS habitat into riparian vegetation. This could
impact approximately 1.5 acres of RAFSS in the center of the creek channel. (calculated with GIS
as a 50-foot wide corridor overlying the current low-flow channel, impacting mulefat scrub as
well as RAFSS). This habitat conversion could affect areas currently occupied by SBKR and rare
plants.
In recognition of this potential impact, Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2 commit Valley
District to replacing impacted sensitive habitat that supports sensitive species in consultation with
CDFW and USFWS. In response to comments received on the DEIR, the Mitigation Measures
have been refined to expressly require replacement of permanently impacted RAFSS habitat at a
ratio no less than 3:1 in consultation with CDFW and USFWS. Valley District is committed to
and looks forward to working with the wildlife agencies to develop appropriate compensation for
the replacement of RAFSS habitat in City Creek with riparian vegetation.
As summarized below, Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2 commit Valley District to
avoiding these species where possible and compensating where avoidance is not feasible through
consultation and development of appropriate strategies with the wildlife agencies. Deferring
specific formulation of mitigation of potential impacts to sensitive species is appropriate here
because while the types of plant and animal species that could be encountered during the time of
the impact are well understood and identified in the DEIR, their distribution may change over
time. This is particularly true in City Creek, where conditions can change due to intermittent
flood events. Further, the need to relocate individual plants or animals or provide compensation
will depend on how effectively the discharge structures can be located to avoid plants identified
during pre-construction surveys, as directed by CDFW and USFWS. Surveys done prior to
project approval would not best reflect the impacts that will occur at the time of construction of
the project, because there will be lag time between approval and construction as the regulatory
process continues. Valley District has concluded that conducting focused surveys closer to the
time of construction and basing specific mitigation measures on the results of those surveys is the
approach that will best protect the affected biological resources. In sum, formulation of specific
mitigation measures to address potential impacts to plant and animal species due to construction
and operation of the project must be based on the most current information in order for the
measures to be meaningful and effective. A mitigation strategy based on studies conducted now
could be entirely ineffective by the time the actual impacts occur, because the conditions of the
potentially-impacted area are expected to change over time. Valley District has accordingly
concluded that in general, studies that are used to develop specific mitigation strategies should be
conducted as close to the time of the potential impact as possible.
Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2 properly commit Valley District to conducting surveys
closer to the time of the impact in order to better understand the actual on-the-ground conditions
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-17 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
of the areas that will be impacted so that Valley District can work together with CDFW and/or
USFWS to determine how impacts to species can be best minimized, avoided, or rectified. In
response to comments and to provide further assurances that any impacts will be properly
mitigated, and as noted above, Valley District is committed to a 1:1 mitigation ratio for temporary
habitat impacts resulting from construction, and a 3:1 ratio for permanent impacts to RAFSS and
associated species. The precise details of how necessary mitigation measures will be carried out,
however, will still be formulated closer to the time of the actual impacts, when surveys providing
up-to-date information regarding the affected species will be formulated. This is not an improper
deferral of data collection, but creation of an obligation to conduct additional focused surveys to
provide precise data on sensitive plant and animal locations that will allow Valley District, in
consultation with CDFW and /or USFWS, to ensure that the mitigation strategy adopted reflects
actual conditions.
Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2 have been refined as follows:
BIO-1: Disturbance to Special-Status Plants. The following measures will reduce
potential project-related impacts to special-status plant species that may occur adjacent to
the project site within City Creek to a less than significant level. Potential project-related
impacts may result from the construction of the pipeline extension and discharge
structure within City Creek, Redlands Basins, and/or the East Twin Creek Spreading
Grounds.
a. Prior to the start of construction within City Creek, Redlands Basins, and/or the
East Twin Creek Spreading Grounds, a focused botanical survey will be
conducted to determine the presence/absence of any of the special-status species
with a moderate or high potential to occur. The focused botanical survey will be
conducted by a botanist or qualified biologist knowledgeable in the identification
of local special-status plant species, and according to accepted protocol outlined
by the CNPS and/or CDFW.
b. If a special status state or federally-listed plant species is discovered in a project
impact area, informal consultation with CDFW and/or USFWS will be required
prior to the impact occurring to develop an appropriate avoidance strategy.
Depending on the sensitivity of the species, relocation, site restoration, or other
habitat improvement actions may be an acceptable option to avoid significant
impacts, as determined through consultation with the resource agencies.
c. If impact avoidance of a state or federally-listed species is not feasible, Valley
District shall quantify the impacted acreage supporting state or federally-listed
plant species within the construction area and estimated perennial flow area and
prepare a Biological Assessment pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act and Section 2081 of the State Endangered Species Act. The Biological
Assessment shall quantify compensation requirements for affected plants species.
Valley District shall implement the conservation measures and compensation
requirements identified through consultation by USACE with both CDFW and
USFWS.
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-18 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
d. Permanent impacts to RAFSS habitat from construction and operation of the
discharge including within the City Creek channel resulting from perennial flow
shall require on-site replacement or off-site compensation at a ratio of at least 3:1
in consultation with CDFW and USFWS. Temporary impacts to RAFSS habitat
would be mitigated at a ratio of at least 1:1 in consultation with CDFW and
USFWS.
BIO-2: Disturbance to Special-Status Wildlife. The following measures will reduce
potential project-related impacts to special-status wildlife species that may occur within
disturbed and native habitats, to a less than significant level. Potential project-related
impacts may result from construction of the SNRC, construction of the discharge
structures within City Creek and other discharge locations, and perennial discharges to
City Creek or other discharge locations.
a. Prior to the start of construction within City Creek or other discharge locations,
Valley District shall conduct focused surveys within the project impact areas to
determine if any state or federally-listed wildlife species (southwestern willow
flycatcher, coastal California gnatcatcher, San Bernardino kangaroo rat, and least
Bell’s vireo) are located within project impact areas. Focused surveys will be
conducted by a qualified and/or permitted biologist, following approved survey
protocol. Survey results will be forwarded to CDFW and USFWS. If state or
federally-listed species are determined to occur on the project site with the
potential to be impacted by the project, consultation with CDFW and/or USFWS
will be required.
b. If impact avoidance is not feasible, Valley District shall quantify the impacted
acreage supporting state or federally-listed wildlife species within the
construction area and estimated perennial flow area and prepare a Biological
Assessment pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and Section
2081 of the State Endangered Species Act. The Biological Assessment shall
quantify compensation requirements for affected wildlife species. Valley District
shall implement the conservation measures and compensation requirements
identified through consultation by USACE with both CDFW and USFWS.
c. Prior to the start of construction of the SNRC building and the recycled water
pipeline along 6th Street, focused burrowing owl surveys shall be conducted to
determine the presence/absence of burrowing owl adjacent to the project area.
The focused burrowing owl survey must be conducted by a qualified biologist
and following the survey guidelines included in the CDFW Staff Report on
Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012). If burrowing owl is observed within
undeveloped habitat within or immediately adjacent to the project impact area,
avoidance/minimization measures would be required such as establishing a
suitable buffer around the nest (typically 500-feet) and monitoring during
construction, or delaying construction until after the nest is no longer active and
the burrowing owls have left. However, if burrowing owl avoidance is infeasible,
a qualified biologist shall implement a passive relocation program in accordance
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-19 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
with the Example Components for Burrowing Owl Artificial Burrow and
Exclusion Plans of the CDFW 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation
(CDFW, 2012).
d. Prior to the start of construction within City Creek, pre-construction site clearing
surveys will be conducted of the project impact area within natural habitats. Any
special status ground-dwelling wildlife will be removed from the immediate
impact area and released in the nearby area.
e. Permanent impacts to RAFSS habitat from construction and operation of the
discharge including within City Creek channel resulting from perennial flow
shall require on-site replacement or off-site compensation at a ratio of at least 3:1
in consultation with CDFW and USFWS. Temporary impacts to RAFSS habitat
would be mitigated at a ratio of at least 1:1 in consultation with CDFW and
USFWS.
Deferred Mitigation
The comment also states that permit negotiations conducted outside of the CEQA process are not
CEQA compliant. The DEIR recognizes that within the impacted areas within City Creek there is
the potential for sensitive plants to occur. Mitigation Measure BIO-1 commits Valley District to
avoiding these plants where possible and compensating where avoidance is not feasible through
consultation with the wildlife agencies. Valley District is conducting protocol level surveys in the
spring of 2016 within the impact zones to support the Endangered Species Act consultation under
Section 7. This is an appropriate mitigation strategy and does not require recirculation of the
DEIR. Since conditions within City Creek change over time due to flood events, Mitigation
Measure BIO-1 rightfully commits Valley District to conducting surveys closer to the time of the
impact in order to implement the project’s impact minimization action requirements as outlined in
the Mitigation Measure. Valley District is committed to and looks forward to working with the
wildlife agencies to develop appropriate compensation for the replacement of RAFSS habitat in
City Creek with riparian vegetation.
The types of plant and animal species that could be encountered during the time of the impact are
well understood and identified in the DEIR. However, their distribution may change over time, so
surveys need to be conducted close to the time of impact. The need to relocate individual plants
or provide compensation will depend on how effectively the discharge structures can be located
to avoid plants identified during pre-construction surveys, as directed by CDFW and USFWS.
The requirement to conduct additional focused surveys to provide precise data on sensitive plant
and animal locations close to when the impact will occur is not a deferral of data collection and
the DEIR does not need to be recirculated.
With respect to the comment that requiring additional surveys is a deferred mitigation, CEQA
does not categorically prohibit deferred formulation of the specific details of mitigation measures.
To the contrary, when the Lead Agency commits itself to mitigation that will satisfy performance
standards articulated at the time of project approval, deferred development of the specifics of
mitigation is permissible. (Rialto Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Rialto (2012) 208
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-20 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
Cal.App.4th 899, 944-945.) In other words, while section 15126.4(a)(1)(B) of the CEQA
Guidelines states that formulation of mitigation measures should not be deferred, it also provides
that mitigation measures may specify performance standards which would mitigate the significant
effects of the project and which can be accomplished in more than one way. This does not
preclude the later formulation of specific mitigation measures, but instead means that when
specific mitigation measures will be formulated later, the performance criteria for such mitigation
measures must not be loose or open-ended. Measures that require future formal consultation and
determination of measures to mitigate impacts or compensate for loss are sufficiently definite to
ensure that impacts will in fact be mitigated. (Rialto Citizens, 208 Cal.App.4th at 944-945.)
Deferred formulation of the details of mitigation is particularly proper when another regulatory
agency must issue a permit for the project and is expected to impose specific mitigation
requirements through that permitting process, as long as the EIR for the project includes
performance criteria and the Lead Agency has committed itself to mitigation. In the Rialto
Citizens case, which involved a large retail development project, several special status plant and
animal species (including the San Bernardino kangaroo rat and the western burrowing owl) had
the potential to occur on the project site. To mitigate the potential impacts to those species, the
EIR proposed mitigation measures involving future site surveys and habitat assessments, the
results of which would guide further efforts to mitigate potential significant impacts. For
example, if a SBKR habitat assessment was positive, trapping efforts would be undertaken. If the
trapping efforts found members of the species, the project proponent would be required to consult
with USFWS or the Lead Agency to determine the appropriate off-site mitigation, which would
require approval under section 10(a) of the Federal Endangered Species Act. The Court of Appeal
found that these types of measures were sufficiently definite to mitigate potential impacts to the
species, and did represent proper deferral of mitigation. In short, when a Lead Agency has
committed to conduct future surveys, requires future regulatory review based on the results of
those surveys, and identifies methods that will be considered for mitigating potential impacts, no
improper deferral of mitigation has occurred.
In addition, courts have made clear that regulations designed to protect environmental resources
provide sufficient performance standards to satisfy CEQA, and that an agency does not
improperly defer mitigation when it commits to complying with such regulations. The court in
Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish and Wildlife (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 214,
246 noted that that “[A] condition requiring compliance with regulations is a common and
reasonable mitigation measure, and may be proper where it is reasonable to expect compliance.”
Similarly, best management practices can also serve as the standards that make deferral of
mitigation appropriate. (Endangered Habitats League, Inc. v. County of Orange (2005) 131
Cal.App. 4th 777, 796.)
Here, Valley District has adopted a mitigation strategy very similar to that approved by the court
in the Rialto Citizens and the Center for Biological Diversity cases. Valley District has identified
general performance criteria and potential mitigation measures that can be implemented to meet
those criteria and committed to developing specific mitigation measures through the formal
consultation process. Valley District has determined that basing specific mitigation measures on
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-21 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
information acquired closer to the time of the expected impacts is the best way to ensure that
impacts are in fact ameliorated or rectified. Discussions of the mitigation measures set forth in the
EIR should be read with this overarching strategy in mind. For example, the project will not
divert water from the Santa Ana River until the HCP or HMMP has been finalized and, with
respect to habitat impacts related to construction and operation of the project, will also meet at
least a 1:1 mitigation ratio for temporary habitat impacts and a 3:1 ratio for permanent habitat
impacts. Future permitting processes will serve to better refine and further develop appropriate
mitigation and, importantly, will give CDFW and other agencies further opportunities to suggest
how mitigation strategies can be best adapted to respond to the actual conditions of the impacted
areas. Valley District is eager to develop mitigation measures that have the best chance of
benefitting the affected species, and looks forward to collaborating with CDFW and USFWS to
develop both an effective plan for mitigating the project’s impacts, and a regional, long term
strategy for improving the system in City Creek for both RAFSS and riparian dependent species.
Comment CDFW-2
The commenter agrees with the DEIR’s finding of significant impact on the Santa Ana sucker and
recommends that the mitigation strategy include a manipulation of water temperature to aid in the
reduction of the red alga growth downstream of the RIX outflow.
Response to CDFW-2
Mitigation Measure BIO-3 outlines conservation measures to improve habitat conditions within
the segment of the SAR directly below the RIX discharge. In particular, and consistent with this
comment, SAS Measure SAS-5 includes providing supplemental water to lower water
temperatures during the summer months in the Rialto Channel to improve habitat conditions. The
DEIR concludes that the ability to introduce colder water into the Rialto Channel would improve
habitat conditions compared with the existing condition. Although red alga is a concern in the
areas downstream of the RIX discharge, the intent is that introduction of colder water in the
Rialto Channel will have temperature-reducing effects downstream, which could help hinder
growth of red alga. As part of the HCP, measures to decrease the prevalence of red alga will be
evaluated. One potential action would be to introduce cooler groundwater and institute high flow
pulse event flows as outlined in Mitigation Measure BIO-3. Precise formulation of strategies to
control factors that adversely affect the SAS and its habitat, like red alga, will be a key
component of the HCP and the HMMP.
Comment CDFW-3
The comment recommends that the DEIR should identify the minimum flows necessary to
maintain the heath and persistence of aquatic resources in Rialto Channel and the Santa Ana
River downstream, and to identify groundwater resources within the Upper Santa Ana River
Basin.
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-22 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
Response to CDFW-3
Minimum Flow Study
The DEIR describes the existing condition of the SAR and RIX discharges on page 3.4-48. The
Reduced Discharge Study estimates the impact to depth and velocity that may occur if discharges
were reduced. Determining low flow requirements is complex since depth and velocity can vary
substantially depending on the channel geometry and flow obstructions. In addition, preferred
depth and velocity may be different for younger stage juveniles than for adults, recommending a
variety of conditions within a targeted river segment. For these reasons, the scientific community
has not established a widely accepted minimum flow volume although the USGS is in the process
of developing a Habitat Suitability Model for the Santa Ana sucker as part of the HCP planning
process. The model, which is expected to be completed and tested in the summer of 2016, will be
used by this project and others to determine the most effective conservation activities for the
species.
However, establishment of a fixed minimum flow volume is not necessary in order to accurately
assess the impacts of flow reduction or identify measures that will mitigate those impacts. In
general, the project proposes to reduce the constant flow of water by 20% in a system that is
already experiencing a multitude of stressors. Due to the currently degraded condition of the SAR
habitat and a proposed reduction of constant flow, the DEIR concluded that the impact to the
Santa Ana sucker in particular is properly deemed “significant and unavoidable.”
Even without reference to a definitive low flow “basement,” Valley District has been able to
identify potential impacts and develop appropriate mitigation measures. Measure BIO-3 outlines
conservation commitments to be included in a Habitat Management and Monitoring Plan
(HMMP) to specifically address the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the proposed
project. Notably, the volume of flow in the Santa Ana River is not the only factor affecting SAS
survival. While the project will reduce river flows, the matrix on page 3.4-52 of the DEIR sets
forth measures that address numerous other factors that affect the long-term viability of the SAS.
Improving those factors compared to existing conditions will help ameliorate the impacts of the
project resulting from reduced flows, in part by creating a buffer against catastrophic events,
including periodic dewatering events, which could otherwise result in virtual extirpation of the
species.
In other words, the HMMP is designed to not simply rectify the impacts of the project in a way
that will maintain the current status quo – which has not been beneficial to species like the SAS,
to say the least – but to address, in a long-term, comprehensive manner, a variety of existing
conditions that adversely affect the SAS and other species, like the Arroyo chub. Valley District
has concluded that the project’s reduction of river flows is properly deemed a significant and
unavoidable impact to the SAS, but in an effort to rectify that impact as CEQA requires, is
committed to addressing numerous other undesirable conditions that interfere with the long-term
survival of the species. Furthermore, through this project Valley District proposes to begin
implementing the first phase of a long-term, regional conservation strategy that will provide the
framework for recovery of the species.
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-23 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
Groundwater Contributions to SAR Flow
The Reduced Discharge Study incorporates USGS data of river flows that suggest
groundwater contributions starting to appear in the lower study area. In response to
concerns provided by the USFWS, the Reduced Discharge Study has been updated with
more conservative assumptions on contributions of groundwater at the lower study area
reach. Appendix H of the FEIR includes this update to the Study. As shown in Figure A1
of the Study Update (see below), USGS data collected on a monthly basis in 2015 show a
wide variety of water depth in the lower study area reach. The USGS data show that the
data provided in the DEIR for the lower reach on Figure 3.4-3 are conservatively low.
In recognition that the relationship of the surface water flow and groundwater contribution in the
SAR is complex, and to ensure a conservative analysis, the updated Reduced Discharge Study
provides results of the hydrology model assuming zero contribution from groundwater. The
results are summarized in the Table 3 from the Reduced Discharge Study below. The results show
slightly greater impacts compared to the analysis assuming groundwater contribution. The revised
analysis shows a 7 percent average decrease in wetted area as opposed to 6 percent in the initial
model results. Similarly, maximum change in velocity and depth are similar to and slightly
greater than the initial model results.
TABLE 3
MAXIMUM AND MEAN CHANGE IN AREA WITHIN A VELOCITY OR DEPTH ZONE, AND CHANGE IN
WETTED CHANNEL AREA UNDER A LOWER BOUND AND MEDIAN FLOW SCENARIO, FOR A 6 MGD
REDUCTION AT RIX
Flow scenario Reach
Max. change (±) in
area of a velocity or
depth zone
Mean change in
area of a velocity
or depth zone
Change in
wetted area
over existing
condition
Average
change in
wetted area
over existing
condition
Lower Bound
flow scenario
Upper 8% 2% -5%
-7% Middle 7% 2% -12%
Lower 11% 3% -4%
Median flow
scenario
Upper 7% 2% -3%
-4% Middle 8% 2% -7%
Lower 10% 3% -3%
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-24 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
Santa Ana River Low Flow Study, D150005
Figure A1
Revised flow data used for existing and proposed conditions
SOURCE: ESA and USGS
Note: solid markers denote measured data points;
hollow markers denote interpolated or extrapolated data
11. Responses to Comments
The conclusions of the Study Update are that the contribution of groundwater in the lower study
area reach is complex and variable. However, the data do show that the river becomes a gaining
stream to some varying degree as it slows and enters the lower study area reach above the MWD
crossing. The updated study conducts the analysis assuming zero contribution from groundwater
and finds similarly minimal impacts.
Mitigation Measure BIO-3 has been modified to include SAS-7 as shown below to include
hydrologic monitoring of the SAR below RIX to better understand the seasonal and diurnal
fluctuations in river flow.
BIO-3: Disturbance to Santa Ana sucker. …
• SAS-7: Monitoring. The HMMP will outline a monitoring program to collect
hydrology data in the segment of river between the RIX discharge and Mission
Boulevard. The data will include flow velocity and depth.
Beginning in July 2015, the USGS began collecting monthly data to assess the surface flow and
groundwater infiltration interaction between the Rialto Channel and Mission Blvd. Preliminary
results of this study are expected by the end of 2016 and will inform decisions by the HCP and
others as to the priority conservation activities to benefit the species in this reach.
Comment CDFW-4
The comment notes that protection of nesting birds is the responsibility of the project proponent
and that pre-construction surveys should be conducted within 30 days prior to the start of
construction and no more than three days prior to vegetation clearing.
Response to CDFW-4
Mitigation Measure BIO-5 outlines protocols for ensuring that the project would not impact
nesting birds. The mitigation measure requires pre-construction surveys to be conducted 30 days
prior to commencement of construction activities and again within 3 days of construction.
Mitigation Measure BIO-5 has been modified to clarify this requirement:
BIO-5: Disturbance to Nesting Birds. To minimize potential construction-related
project impacts to avian species that may be nesting on or immediately adjacent to the
project area, the following measures will reduce any potential impact to a less than
significant level.
a. To avoid potential impacts to birds that may be nesting on or immediately
adjacent to the project area, construction of the project should avoid the general
avian breeding season of February through August.
b. If construction must occur during the general avian breeding season, a pre-
construction clearance survey shall be conducted within 30 days prior to the start
of construction, to determine if any active nests or sign of nesting activity is
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-26 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
located on or immediately adjacent to the project area, specifically at the
proposed SNRC location. An additional survey shall be conducted within 3 days
prior to the commencement of construction activities. If no nesting activity is
observed during the pre-construction survey, construction may commence
without potential impacts to nesting birds.
c. If an active nest is observed a suitable buffer will be placed around the nest,
depending on sensitivity of the nesting species, and onsite monitoring may be
required during construction to ensure no disturbance or take of the nest occurs.
Construction may continue in other areas of the project and construction
activities may only encroach within the buffer at the discretion of the monitoring
biologist. The buffer will remain in place until the nestlings have fledged and the
nest is no longer considered active.
Comment CDFW-5
The comment states that Mitigation Measure BIO-2 should include specific, enforceable, and
feasible actions to mitigate impacts to burrowing owl.
Response to CDFW-5
Burrowing Owl Impact Survey and Mitigation
The deferred formulation of mitigation measures to address impacts to the burrowing owl is due
to the fact that biological surveys of the SNRC site and discharge locations turned up no sign of
burrowing owl. However, the DEIR notes on page 3.4-26 that burrowing owl have been observed
within ½ mile of the site, and so they may later be encountered at either the SNRC site or
discharge locations. In addition, as required in the Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol, the field
biologists noted suitable habitat within the project impact areas. However, the requirements for
suitability are broad, including any open area with exposed dirt. Conducting additional surveys
closer to the time of impact is appropriate to ensure that nesting owls are not impacted. Mitigation
Measure BIO-2 specifically commits Valley District to implement CDFW-recommended
burrowing owl survey protocols prior to construction that would include providing compensatory
habitat replacement if occupied habitat is developed. However, no burrowing owls have been
observed using the potentially affected project areas. Therefore, providing compensatory
mitigation at this time is unwarranted.
Thus, based on current knowledge no burrowing owls are present within the impact areas, but this
could change by the time construction begins. It will be necessary to conduct surveys closer to the
time of impact to better understand whether the burrowing owl has moved into the impact areas
or will otherwise be affected by the project. The surveys will be conducted in accordance with
CDFW-recommended protocols. The results of those future surveys will inform the selection of
mitigation measures that will avoid or rectify any impacts to the burrowing owl, potentially
including compensation for loss of occupied habitat, establishment of a suitable buffer (typically
500 feet) around nests, monitoring during construction or delaying construction, and, if necessary,
passive relocation in accordance with CDFW’s 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation.
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-27 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
(See Mitigation Measures BIO -2, which commits Valley District to conducting future surveys
and development of appropriate mitigation, and lists potential mitigation strategies.) The ultimate
goal of the selected mitigation measures will be to ensure that any impact to the burrowing owl is
rendered insignificant.
Valley District has concluded that this is the best approach to mitigation of potential impacts to
the burrowing owl. If mitigation measures were formulated at this time, they would rely on a
certain degree of guesswork and speculation because no owls were found in the impact areas. By
conducting additional focused, site-specific surveys closer to the beginning of construction,
Valley District can develop a mitigation strategy that makes use of the best available information
and thus will more effectively address the project’s actual potential impacts to the owl.
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-28 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter – City of Colton (Colton)
Colton-1
The comment requests information regarding the impact of the project to the operation of the RIX
plant, and notes potential impacts to Santa Ana sucker habitat.
Response to Colton-1
The proposed project would not significantly affect the operations of the RIX facility, but would
reduce influent volume. As explained in the Draft EIR on page 1-2, the proposed project would
divert all EVWD effluent, which is 6 MGD, from RIX. The project does not impact remaining
operations of the RIX facility, including its service to the Cities of San Bernardino and Colton. To
address potential impacts to the SAS, the DEIR includes Mitigation Measure BIO-3, which
incorporates an extensive array of activities that will be undertaken to improve SAS habitat and
long-term viability of the species.
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-29 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter – City of Highland (Highland)
Comment Highland-1
The comment states that any land use not specifically authorized or identified in the zoning code
is prohibited. The comment states that the DEIR incorrectly interpreted the Sterling Natural
Resource Center (with all its components) to be compatible with the City’s Business Park Zoning
District. The comment suggests that the DEIR be modified to reflect that the existing Business
Park Zoning District only permits the office component of the Sterling Natural Resource Center
project.
Response to Highland-1
Valley District agrees with the City of Highland comment that the existing Business Park Zoning
District permits the Administration Center component of the Natural Resource Center project. As
noted in the DEIR, the administrative office uses are a permitted use in the Business Park
designation and are listed as such in Table 16.24.030.A of the City of Highland Municipal Code
(HMC). The Administration Center of the SNRC will be located to the West of Del Rosa Drive.
Valley District also recognizes that this use will be subject to a departmental review permit
application pursuant to Chapter 16.08 HMC.
The Wastewater Treatment Facility of the SNRC is not a use expressly permitted within the
Business Park Zoning District nor does it expressly comport with the land use designation
established by the City of Highland General Plan. However, the Government Code expressly
exempts wastewater and water treatment facilities from local zoning regulations, including
general plan land use designations, and building regulations. Like the DEIR, the City’s comment
letter correctly cites to the applicable statutes, Government Code Sections 53091 and 53095.
Government Code section 53091(e) provides, in pertinent part: “Zoning ordinances of a county or
city shall not apply to the location or construction of facilities for the production, generation,
storage, treatment, or transmission of water…” The courts have held that this exemption extends
to facilities directly and immediately used to generate, transmit or store water. As stated in City of
Lafayette v. East Bay Municipal Water District:
“We think the absolute exemption of section 53091 was intended to be limited to
facilities directly and immediately used to produce, generate, store or transmit
water. Only those indispensable facilities must be located at the unfettered
discretion of a water district – that is, without the burden of city and county
zoning regulations – in order to assure the imperative of efficient and economical
delivery of water to customers.”
City of Lafayette v. East Bay Municipal Water District (1993) 16 Cal. App. 4th 1005, at 1014. In
2002, the absolute exemption passage discussed in the City of Lafayette case was amended to add
water “treatment” to the scope of its exemption. 2002 Cal. Legis. Serv. Ch. 267 (S.B. 1711).
Moreover, Government Code Section 53095 provides that the exemption of Section 53901 also
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-30 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
extends to a city’s General Plan land use designations. Because of these exemptions, the water
production, generation, treatment and transmission aspects of the SNRC can be built and cannot
be evaluated as inconsistent with the local land use designation of the site.
The City has requested that Valley District collaborate in the review and approval of street
improvement plans, construction plans and to amend the City’s general plan to the Public/Quasi
Public zoning designation. While Valley District does not waive the applicable governmental
immunities discussed above, it will cooperate with the City regarding street improvement plans,
construction plans and any City-initiated General Plan amendment so long as the approval
process does not adversely impact or delay construction or operation of the SNRC.
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-31 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter - City of Rialto (Rialto)
Comment Rialto-1
The comment concurs with the analysis in the DEIR and states that the reduction of 6 MGD
would not cause harm to biological resources in the Santa Ana River. The comment requests that
the DEIR evaluate use of the supplemental water wells on local groundwater and SAR base flow.
Response to Rialto-1
The Updated Reduced Discharge Study estimates that impacts to the depth and velocity of the
SAR from the proposed project would be minor. The Updated Study supports this conclusion
using a more conservative assessment of the groundwater contribution to the river in the lower
study area. The results of the Updated Study are provided in Appendix H and explained in
Response to Comment CDFW-3. The Updated Study provides data that suggest that groundwater
interaction with surface water in this portion of the watershed is complex. The Updated Study
includes water depth data collected by USGS that show wide variety in depths in the lower reach
each time it is measured. The data suggest that groundwater inflow fluctuates, possibly indicating
that local extraction rates from nearby wells are similarly variable. Due to the distance from the
proposed supplemental Rialto wells to the lower study area (over one mile), the potential for these
supplemental water wells to affect groundwater contributions into the SAR is low. The wells are
over a mile from the point in the river within the lower study area reach where groundwater first
contributes to the SAR. Furthermore, this contribution exhibited in the data may be mostly
underflow from surface water percolating up stream. The zone of influence from the Rialto wells
is not expected to extend over a mile down river. Groundwater levels near the SAR are influenced
by the cumulative pumping activities in the entire region. The DEIR concludes on page 3.9-24
that the potential impact to the cumulative groundwater condition from the proposed Rialto wells
would be minor compared to other pumping activities.
Please see Responses to Comments CDFW-3, OCWD-1, OCWD-2 and SEJA-51.
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-32 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter – City of Riverside Public Utilities
Department (RPU)
Comment RPU-1
The comment suggests that a study be completed to demonstrate no adverse impacts will occur to
certain RPU wells.
Response to RPU-1
The DEIR evaluates potential impacts to neighboring municipal production wells on page 3.9-22.
The DEIR imposes Mitigation Measure HYDRO-2 that requires that Valley District install a
monitoring well network to evaluate potential water quality impacts associated with the project.
The mitigation measure provides performance standards if monitoring finds that impacts are
occurring. The performance standards include providing replacement water if the effects are not
otherwise mitigated. The DEIR concludes that with implementation of Mitigation Measure
HYDRO-2, impacts to neighboring wells would be less than significant.
The DEIR acknowledges in Table 2-9 that the project would be required to obtain a discharge
permit from the RWQCB. Valley Water has been engaged in discussions with the Santa Ana
RWQCB and the State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Drinking Water (DDW)
regarding permit requirements for discharge from the Sterling Natural Resource Center (SNRC).
Numerous technical analyses have been and are being undertaken to evaluate the transport of the
recycled water upon discharge from the SNRC, whether into City Creek or one of the other
identified recharge locations. Appendix I of the FEIR includes full reports of the groundwater
modeling conducted for each of the recharge locations.
The modeling results prepared by Geoscience Support Services Inc. (GSSI) (Appendix I) show
there is no impact to the Gage wells from a discharge into City Creek, as shown in Figure 11-3
below. The blue lines are “particle tracks” that represent recycled water flows in the groundwater
system that would result from a 10-MGD discharge to City Creek. The figure shows that after
12 months, recycled water particles have traveled less than 2,000 feet west within the
groundwater basin. DDW approval of the proposed groundwater recharge activities will require
that no adverse impacts occur to any nearby drinking water wells.
Similar work evaluating discharge to the Redlands Basins has also been conducted. The results of
those analyses indicate a 10 MGD discharge at Redlands Basins would not reach any drinking
water wells after 6 months, and it would take more than 20 years for the recycled water
contribution to reach 20 percent at the Gage Wells as shown in Figure 11-4. The regulatory
requirement is the recycled water contribution (RWC) to be less than 20 percent after 10 years of
residence/travel time.
These and similar analyses of a potential discharge to the East Twin Creek Spreading Grounds
(Appendix I) will be utilized in working with the RWQCB and DDW to refine the locations and
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-33 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
requirements of the proposed discharges. Any discharges to the East Twin Creek Spreading
Grounds will not impact any Riverside wells.
Furthermore, water quality testing will occur on any potential well that would be used to supply
supplemental water to the Rialto Channel. Supplemental water would meet all water quality
standards defined by the RWQCB and as required by a NPDES discharge permit.
Comment RPU-2
The comment states there should be a study to determine if any adverse impacts will occur to
RPU’s groundwater wells. The comment states that in the event the analysis is flawed and an
impact was to occur, RPU would expect Valley District to discontinue discharging until the
problem was resolved.
Response to RPU-2
As stated in Response to Comment RPU-1, the requested studies are underway as a part of the on-
going process of developing discharge requirements through consultation with the Regional
Board and DDW. DDW approval of the proposed groundwater recharge activities will require
that no adverse impacts occur to any nearby drinking water wells.
Comment RPU-3
The comment suggests a study be completed to inform RPU if the groundwater beneath their
currently unused property will be adversely impacted. The comment suggests that an MOU be
created that describes appropriate solutions to remedy any potential impact.
Response to RPU-3
The State of California, Title 22, has been amended on numerous occasions to reflect greater
control over discharge of recycled water/treated wastewater to groundwater basins. Current
regulations require establishment of an area of restricted pumping for domestic use in the
downstream gradient of recycled water/treated wastewater discharge locations, and it is
anticipated that such a zone of restricted pumping will be required downstream of the permitted
discharge locations for the SNRC. The analyses to establish the extent of any required zone of
restricted pumping is underway and is a part of the analyses required by the Regional Board and
DDW prior to their consideration of issuance of a permit for discharge. Valley District
appreciates the opportunity to work on developing an MOU with RPU.
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-34 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.
P.O. Box 220, Claremont, CA 91711
Tel: (909) 451-6650 Fax: (909) 451-6638
www.gssiwater.com
Sterling Natural Resource Center . 150005
Figure 11-3
City Creek Proposed Discharge
SOURCE: Geoscience Support Services Inc, 2016
11. Responses to Comments
This page left intentionally blank
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-36 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
NORTH GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.
P.O. Box 220, Claremont, CA 91711
Tel: (909) 451-6650 Fax: (909) 451-6638
www.gssiwater.com
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 5 10152025
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
o
f
R
e
c
y
c
l
e
d
W
a
t
e
r
,
%
Years Since Recharge of Recycled Water Started
Layer 2
Layer 3
Layer 4
City of Riverside Gage Well No. 56-1
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 5 10152025
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
o
f
R
e
c
y
c
l
e
d
W
a
t
e
r
,
%
Years Since Recharge of Recycled Water Started
Layer 3
Layer 4
City of Riverside Gage Well No. 92-3
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 5 10152025
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
o
f
R
e
c
y
c
l
e
d
W
a
t
e
r
,
%
Years Since Recharge of Recycled Water Started
Layer 3
Layer 4
City of Riverside Gage Well No. 92-2
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 5 10152025
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
o
f
R
e
c
y
c
l
e
d
W
a
t
e
r
,
%
Years Since Recharge of Recycled Water Started
Layer 4
Layer 5
East Valley Water District Plant No. 28A
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 5 10152025
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
o
f
R
e
c
y
c
l
e
d
W
a
t
e
r
,
%
Years Since Recharge of Recycled Water Started
Layer 1
Layer 2
Layer 3
City of Riverside Gage Well No. 31-1R
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 5 10152025
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
o
f
R
e
c
y
c
l
e
d
W
a
t
e
r
,
%
Years Since Recharge of Recycled Water Started
Layer 4
Layer 5
East Valley Water District Plant No. 141
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 5 10152025
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
o
f
R
e
c
y
c
l
e
d
W
a
t
e
r
,
%
Years Since Recharge of Recycled Water Started
Layer 1
Layer 2
Layer 3
City of Riverside Gage Well No. 46-1R
Sterling Natural Resource Center . 150005
Figure 11-4
Redlands Basins Proposed Discharge
SOURCE: Geoscience Support Services Inc, 2016
11. Responses to Comments
Comment RPU-4
The comment states that it should be confirmed that the Operational Manual for City Creek
Discharges will ensure that under all conditions the proposed City Creek effluent discharges will
always remain above the confluence with the Santa Ana River. The comment states that the
Operational Manual should include a Contingency Plan should the effluent reach beyond the
confluence with the Santa Ana River.
Response to RPU-4
The intent of the SNRC is to provide treatment to wastewater flows from the East Valley Water
District and to recharge those treated flows into the Bunker Hill Basin for future use. As such, the
proposed discharge to City Creek is being formulated to achieve essentially full recharge of the
treated flows prior to the confluence of City Creek with the Santa Ana River. The objective
would be to maintain a wetted stream to the confluence while not “losing” any of the flow into
the Santa Ana River from recharging into the Bunker Hill Basin.
The Operation Manual for City Creek Discharges will address the dry and wet weather flow
periods and will provide a basis for diverting discharges from City Creek to either the East Twin
Creek Spreading Grounds or the Redlands Basins during wet weather flow conditions, so that the
recycled water would continue to be recharged into the Bunker Hill Basin. Regional Board
approval of the proposed City Creek discharge will ensure that surface water quality is protected
during all conditions.
Comment RPU-5
The comment requests that groundwater modeling results be provided.
Response to RPU-5
The Regional Board/DDW permitting process requires analyses that provide a clear
demonstration that the proposed discharge will not harm the Bunker Hill groundwater basin or the
identified beneficial uses within the basin. As stated in Response to Comment RPU-1,
groundwater modeling to support Regional Board/DDW permitting is currently underway. A part
of that analysis requires that the initial 10-year average recycled water contribution at the nearest
well not exceed 20 percent of the water pumped from that well.
Valley District has conducted groundwater modeling of the proposed recharge that is included in
Appendix I of the FEIR. Although some of the basin’s assimilative capacity would be utilized by
the proposed SNRC discharge, the minor increase in TDS concentration basin-wide is not
considered significant. It is not believed that this minor increase in TDS in the nearest well, and
less increases in TDS in the overall groundwater basin and therefore other wells, would result in
adverse impact on the RPU’s overall water quality or its ability to meet discharge requirements
from its Regional Water Quality Control Plan.
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-38 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
Comment RPU-6
The comment states that Valley District is expected to adhere to all stipulations within the
Western-San Bernardino Judgment. The comment states that RPU expects that the 16,000 acre-
foot effluent commitment will not consist of over-extracted Riverside North groundwater
generated from the RIX extraction wells, treated effluent generated from Colton’s discharge, or
mitigation groundwater produced by Valley for use in Rialto Channel.
Response to RPU-6
Valley District will continue to adhere to all of the provisions of the Orange County and Western
Judgments. Neither of those Judgments limits the sources of water that can be used to meet
Valley District’s obligations. Valley District trusts that the comment does not suggest that RPU
wishes to alter the terms of those Judgments.
The DEIR concludes that even with the reduction of 6 MGD from the RIX discharge, Valley
District’s water delivery obligation under the 1969 Judgment would be maintained through the
remaining RIX discharges. The DEIR further concludes that the water delivery obligation is
Valley District’s as the regional water agency, though, as discussed below, the City of San
Bernardino has agreed to discharge sufficient water to meet Valley District’s obligation under the
Orange County Judgment.
At present, under the terms of the Orange County Judgment, Valley District is entitled to reduce
actual flows at Riverside Narrows to 12,420 afy of base flow due to the credits that Valley
District has accrued since 1969. Valley District is prepared to enter into a memorandum of
understanding with the City of San Bernardino that would: (i) allow for flow reductions from RIX
or other sources so as only to provide 12,420 afy at Riverside Narrows rather than discharging the
full 16,000 afy as required by the agreement between the City of San Bernardino and Valley
District; (ii) allow the City of San Bernardino to use up to 3,580 afy that would have been
discharged for the purpose of replenishing the San Bernardino Basin Area, replacing the 3,580
afy with credits previously accrued by Valley District under the terms of the Orange County
Judgment; and (iii) prevent the City of San Bernardino from selling, leasing, or otherwise
conveying or transferring the 3,580 afy, directly or indirectly, outside the boundaries of Valley
District.
Please see Response to Comment OCWD-1.
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-39 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter – Inland Valley Development Agency (IVDA)
Comment IVDA-1
The comment states that more detail and analysis should be included and that mitigation measures
defer information collection.
Response to IVDA-1
Chapter 2 of DEIR includes a project-level description of the proposed project that includes maps
of project components. For each impacted resource, mitigation measures are listed throughout the
DEIR. A list of those mitigation measures can be found in Table ES-1 on pages ES-7 to ES-23.
Mitigation of the project’s impacts is not improperly deferred; instead the DEIR properly
commits Valley District to specific mitigation measures, regulatory approvals with adherence to
their and other identified performance standards, and timely focused additional studies that will
be used to develop the precise mitigation strategies that will be most effective in avoiding or
rectifying the impacts of the project.
For more information on proper deferral of mitigation, please see Responses to Comments
CDFW-1, CBD-3, and CBD-6
Comment IVDA-2
The comment states that there should be specific information on project construction,
maintenance, operational and mitigation measure costs in the DEIR.
Response to IVDA-2
The DEIR does not evaluate the cost of the project since cost is not an environmental impact.
Project costs are included in the Update of the Recycled Water Feasibility Study 2015. As the
responsible decision makers, the Valley District Board of Directors will consider project costs
when considering approval of the project, which will occur as a separate action from the
certification of the Final EIR.
Comment IVDA-3
The comment states that more detail should be included regarding what odor control systems will
be implemented and the expected efficiency of those systems. The comment states an assessment
of potential residual odors should be provided.
Response to IVDA-3
The Draft EIR identifies the odor control systems that would be implemented to capture and treat
foul smells (page 2-12).The DEIR explains the effect of the odors that would be produced by the
proposed project and the mitigations that would be implemented to reduce those impacts. As
stated in 3.3-5, “To minimize detectable odors outside the project site boundaries, all the
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-40 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
proposed treatment processes would be enclosed and subject to a facility-wide odor control
system. The collected air would be treated through bio-scrubbers, using best available odor
control technologies.” Mitigation Measure AIR-2 would be implemented to provide further
assessments of the odors produced by the proposed project, including potential residual odors.
Additional details of the system will be established during development of final designs.
Comment IVDA-4
The comment requests information on project wells sites designed to capture percolated water
and states that the supplemental wells were not addressed in the DEIR.
Response to IVDA-4
The project does not propose to use extraction wells to capture recharged water. Rather, the
project would recharge the Bunker Hill Basin to benefit regional water supplies and more
effectively manage the groundwater basin. The Draft EIR describes the refurbishment of
supplemental water wells on page 2-27. The DEIR acknowledges on page 2-34 that approval is
needed by the City of Rialto before refurbishment can be implemented. The refurbishment of the
groundwater wells would involve minor construction activities and would not result in significant
impacts. The wells are existing wells and the refurbishment refers to replacing the motors and
pumps. The DEIR evaluates potential impacts to groundwater from the use of the supplemental
wells on page 3.9-24, concluding that much of the water discharged into the stream would be
recharged into the groundwater basin through the river bed.
Please see Response to Comment Rialto-1.
Comment IVDA-5
The comment states that information on background noise measurements as well as information
on construction and operational noise levels and mitigation should be included. The comment
states that construction traffic trips should be considered in the traffic analyses.
Response to IVDA-5
The DEIR evaluates construction and operational noise in Chapter 3.11. Ambient noise
measurements were not collected at the site. However, the analysis describes that existing
ambient noise is affected by traffic and other activities common in residential and commercial
neighborhoods. The analysis estimates future noise from construction and concludes that
construction noise could result in temporary significant increases to ambient noise. Once
construction is completed, the SNRC would comply with the City’s noise ordinance. Mitigation
Measures NOISE-2 and NOISE-3 would assist in minimizing noise from the SNRC operations.
Construction traffic trips were considered in the traffic analysis in Chapter 3.15, specifically
Impact 3.15-1 on pages 3.15-5 to 3.15-6. The DEIR concludes that the additional commuter and
truck delivery trips would be minor compared with existing traffic and roadway capacities.
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-41 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
Comment IVDA-6
The comment suggests coordination to avoid any potential utility conflicts. The comment states
that IVDA has developed design and engineering plans that will be provided for coordination.
Response to IVDA-6
The DEIR evaluates potential impacts to utilities in Section 3.13. The comment does not question
the accuracy or adequacy of the environmental analysis within the DEIR. Valley District
appreciates the provision of information from IVDA to supplement its utility infrastructure files.
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-42 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter – Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California (MWD)
Comment MWD-1
The comment indicates that the proposed project could potentially impact Metropolitan Water
District’s facilities including the Inland Feeder near the City Creek extension. The comment
further expresses that any design plans for any activity in the area of MWD’s facilities or
pipelines be submitted for their review and written approval.
Response to MWD-1
The introduction of perennial flow to the lower segment of the City Creek is not expected to
modify channel geometry or promote channel cutting that could affect the Inland Feeder crossing
which is far upstream. Valley District recognizes the vital importance of maintaining the Inland
Feeder crossing and will coordinate any activities that could affect the pipeline.
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-43 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter - Orange County Water District (OCWD)
Comment OCWD-1
The comment expresses concern that the Project would reduce the amount of water flowing in the
Santa Ana River to the Prado Basin and the associated riparian and wetlands habitat. Specifically,
the concern is that the Project would remove water from the Santa Ana River at a rate that would
leave insufficient water in the river to support riparian habitat and beneficial uses in Prado Basin
and other portions of the water bodies upstream of Prado Basin.
Response to OCWD-1
SAR Riparian Vegetation Upstream of Prado Basin
As discussed in the DEIR Section 3.4, Biological Resources, the reduced discharge study
(Appendix F in the DEIR) determined that the 6 MGD reduction of water to the Santa Ana River
would not significantly change the existing conditions for riparian vegetation within the first few
miles of the river corridor downstream of the RIX discharge to approximately Mission Boulevard.
The reduction of 6 MGD would reduce total flow by 18-21 percent, lower water depth in the
channel by a maximum of approximately 1.1 inches, reduce the wetted area by 6 percent, and
result in an average change in a velocity class of 2 percent (not exceeding 6 percent) of the total
channel area. The DEIR concludes on page 3.4-58 that this modification to the hydrology would
not substantially reduce riparian cover within the segment of the SAR immediately downstream
of the RIX discharge since the reduction in wetted area and water depth would be minimal.
The relationship between surface water flows and riparian vegetation is controlled by the volume
of perennial flow, geomorphology, hydrogeology, and flood flows. As described in the literature
(Hupp, 1994), streams in arid climates of the southwestern US tend to support linear corridors of
vegetation that thrive at the edge of flowing water. This reflects that the surface water is the only
water available to vegetation. Generally, the distance from the river’s edge where riparian
vegetation can survive depends on the steepness of the adjoining slopes, the velocity of the water
and the permeability of the underlying soils, and the proximity of groundwater. In areas where
surface water flows quickly through highly permeable substrate, vegetation can thrive only close
to the stream edge. This is the case immediately downstream of the RIX discharge. In places
where surface water slows down and spreads out and groundwater is close to the surface such as
within Prado Basin, dense forests of riparian habitat emerge.
In the segment of the SAR immediately downstream of RIX to Riverside Avenue, riparian
vegetation survives close to the river’s edge in a linear corridor, leaving the floodplain and broad
river corridor mostly unvegetated. This reflects a fast moving stream with rapid infiltration and
minimal lateral seepage from the main flowing corridor. Riparian vegetation acreage and vitality
is limited by the availability and accessibility of water. In a stream that exhibits high infiltration,
surface flows and infiltration represent excess water that is unavailable to the vegetation corridor.
Similarly, access to wetted soils is limited by lateral migration that is dependent on soil type.
Well drained soils show little lateral migration, limiting accessibility of water to the root zones of
the riparian corridor. Figure 11-5 illustrates this condition.
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-44 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
Infiltration Outflow
Lateral Migration Lateral Migration
River Outflow
RootZone
UnderStory
Canopy
Sterling Natural Resource Center . 150005
Figure 11-5
Conceptual Stream Inltration
SOURCE: ESA
Wetted Area
Reduction
11. Responses to Comments
Downstream of Riverside Avenue, the river channel becomes more densely vegetated responding
to slower moving water and introduction of the influence of groundwater. This condition is
visible in aerial photographs where vegetation at the river’s edge for the first 6,000 feet below the
RIX discharge is currently tightly confined to the river’s edge. This is the segment of river that
exhibits the highest velocities and the highest infiltration rates. Downstream of Riverside Avenue,
aerial photographs show an increase in verdure in the whole river channel, suggesting that
groundwater or reduced infiltration begins to broaden opportunities for riparian habitat in the
channel to thrive.
As described in the Updated Reduced Discharge Study (Appendix H), the reduction of 7 percent
of the wetted area in this river segment would narrow the 20-35 feet wide river by approximately
6-18 inches on each side of the flowing channel. The riparian corridor would respond by
encroaching toward the water’s edge, but would not otherwise change. The upper canopy and
understory habitats would vary according to the age of the willows rather than the volume of
flowing water. Further downstream by the Santa Ana River Regional Park just upstream of the
Riverside Narrows, the discharge reduction would result in an even smaller water depth reduction
of a maximum of approximately 0.4 inch with negligible changes to flow velocities, wetted areas,
and stream width.
Ultimately the age and density of the vegetation depends on the frequency of periodic flood flows
that clear vegetation and modify the river channel. Following large flood flows, riparian
vegetation rejuvenates quickly, steadily increasing canopy cover over time. The small reduction
in wetted area in the river channel would not significantly affect the vitality of the riparian
corridor currently supported by the perennial surface water discharge. Once the flow reaches the
Prado Basin and is spread over its much larger surface area, the change in surface water level
would approach zero.
Although the DEIR concludes that reducing river flow by 20 percent would not appreciably
reduce riparian habitat acreage or vitality, some reduction may occur as the river channel
narrows. To mitigate for this potential effect, the DEIR includes Mitigation Measure BIO-3 that
commits Valley District to the removal of exotic weeds such as arundo donax in the segment of
river just downstream of the RIX discharge. The removal of arundo donax has been employed for
years by the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority, Santa Ana Watershed Association (SAWA),
and the Orange County Water District to enhance native habitats along the SAR. The reduction of
invasive vegetation allows for native species to emerge in its place, increasing the acreage of
native riparian vegetation. This objective and desired outcome of arundo removal is described in
detail in the SAWA Annual Report (SAWA, 2012). Mitigation Measure BIO-3 would ensure that
the river segment downstream of the RIX discharge is managed for the benefit and protection of
native habitats. This management would benefit the entire ecosystem compared with the existing
condition where no habitat management or consistent monitoring is occurring. Implementation of
Mitigation Measure BIO-3 would commit Valley District to managing riparian habitat in the river
segment immediately below the RIX discharge in a manner similar to how OCWD manages
riparian habitat in Prado Basin as mitigation for impacts from habitat inundation.
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-46 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
Prado Basin Riparian Vegetation
Riparian habitat further downstream within the wide river channel and Prado Basin is supported
by groundwater in addition to surface water. This is evidenced by riparian density within the river
channel that increases with distance from the RIX discharge location, until Prado Basin which is
vegetated with a dense willow forest. OCWD’s comment letter included an Attachment 1
prepared by Stetson Engineers, Inc., titled “Preliminary Assessment of Hydrologic Conditions
Related to Riparian Habitat Health and Vigor in the Prado Basin Management Zone,” dated
October 26, 2015. This study evaluated the connection between surface water and groundwater,
noting reaches of the river that were gaining or losing stream reaches. The study noted that
between the two surface water measurement locations named SAR #1 and SAR #2 located on the
portion of the Santa Ana River in the upstream portions of the Prado Basin, this reach was a
gaining stream even during the drier October monitoring time period. This indicates that
groundwater is sufficiently high so as to enter into the stream channel within this reach of the
river to support surface water flow, even during the dry season.
The Stetson report also discussed observations of degradation of riparian habitat over the recent
years. Several areas were observed to show signs of distress, such as leaf senescence, branch
sacrifice, crown dieback, and some dead trees, along with the conversion of some areas of
riparian habitat to riparian scrub. Stetson concluded that surface water flow and depressed
groundwater levels appeared to be insufficient to support riparian habitat in some areas. However,
Stetson also noted that the information developed in their assessment is suggestive but not
conclusive. Given the continuing drought, it appears that, as a general matter, groundwater and
surface water flows are sufficient to support most of the riparian forest and many of the
observations in the Stetson report seem linked to drought.
OCWD also provided an Attachment 2, which contained modeled hydrograph results for 2021
and 2071, titled “Prado Basin Daily Discharge Estimates for 2021 and 20 71 Using the
Wasteload Allocation Model,” prepared by Wildermuth Environmental, Inc. (WEI), and dated
January 24, 2014. The WEI report’s modeled hydrographs uniformly predict decreasing
wastewater volumes, decreasing groundwater levels, and increasing stormwater runoff due to the
predicted increase in impervious surfaces. It should be noted that the WEI report aggregates all
sources of wastewater discharge and causes of groundwater level decreases and does not assign
relative or individual causes. However, the input WEI used for the RIX WWTP, assumed to be
the “San Bernardino/Colton” input lines on WEI’s Tables 1 and 2, underestimate the actual
discharge volumes. In their Table 1, WEI assumes the RIX discharge at 20.8 MGD or 23,313
AFY, whereas the actual volume for the past 4 years ranges from 33,271 AFY to 39,333 AFY, as
documented in the previously discussed Santa Ana Watermaster report. In the Table 2, WEI
assumes the 2071 discharge from RIX to range from 8 MGD to 16 MGD or 8,967 AFY to 17,933
AFY. The project would actually reduce the discharge volume to a range between 26,546 AFY
and 32,608 AFY (based on the last 4 years), still well above the WEI assumptions. This means
that the WEI modeling efforts underestimated the RIX discharge after the project is implemented
and therefore overestimated the decrease in surface water flow to the Prado Basin, as well as
groundwater level declines. OCWD uses the comparison of the 2021 and 2071 hydrographs to
point out that that dry season low flows will increase in severity due to reduced WWTP
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-47 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
discharges. Based on the underestimated discharge volumes discussed above, the WEI reductions
have been overestimated.
Numerous other discharges occur downstream of the RIX discharge point, including the
Riverside Regional Water Quality Control Plant, which discharges approximately 30 MGD
upstream of the Prado Basin. In addition, the groundwater contribution to the riparian corridor
from the Prado Basin is substantial. Currently, water is conserved by the USACE behind Prado
Dam for use by OCWD downstream. The project would not alter the allowed conservation
elevation behind Prado Dam. Surface water could continue to be stored during dry weather
according to the Prado Dam Operations Manual. Furthermore, the proposed project would not
measurably affect groundwater levels within the Prado Basin, which are managed by the Chino
Basin Watermaster. To further illustrate the proximity of groundwater to the Prado Basin riparian
forest, Figure 11-6 prepared by the Chino Basin Watermaster shows that groundwater reaches the
surface within the most densely wooded portion of the Prado Basin. The shallow groundwater, in
combination with surface water, supports the willow forest.
Changes in groundwater level fluctuations are controlled by extraction activities within the Chino
Basin and Prado Basin. The reduction of 6 MGD of surface flows would result in insignificant
impacts to groundwater elevation within Prado Basin compared with the effects of the managed
fluctuation of groundwater levels. As a result, impacts to sensitive plants and riparian habitat
from the reduction of 6 MGD of surface flows upstream at RIX would be less than significant to
habitat within Prado Basin.
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-48 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
Sterling Natural Resource Center . 150005
Figure 11-6
Chino Basin Depth to Groundwater Contours
SOURCE: Chino Basin Watermaster, 2006
11. Responses to Comments
Finally, the surface water inundation levels within the Prado Basin are managed by OCWD. In
addition to considering the input of water to the basin by precipitation, runoff, wastewater
treatment plant discharges, and upwelling groundwater, surface water and groundwater levels
within the Prado Basin are also controlled by OCWD management choices regarding the volume
and timing of releases through the Prado Dam into Orange County. Sustainable management of
the Prado Basin is a combination of managing both the inflow and outflow.
Stipulated Judgment
As discussed in Impact 3.9-9 in Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the DEIR, the
Stipulated Judgement of 1969 requires agencies in the upper watershed to deliver a total of
42,000 acre-feet/year of Adjusted Base Flow to OCWD at specified locations. Valley District’s
minimum obligation is 12,420 acre-feet/year of Adjusted Base Flows, delivered to OCWD at
Riverside Narrows.
As detailed in the 2013-2014 Santa Ana River Watermaster Report (Forty- Fourth Annual Report
of the Santa Ana River Watermaster for Water Year October 1, 2013 - September 30, 2014, dated
April 30, 2015), the RIX WWTP contributed the following recent annual discharge volumes:
• 2010-2011: 39,333 AF
• 2011-2012: 37,966 AF
• 2012-2013: 35,390 AF
• 2013-2014: 33,271 AF
The Project would reduce the discharge to the river by 6 MGD or 6,725 AFY. Based on the 2013-
2014 annual discharge of 33,271 AFY, the Project would reduce the discharge to 26,546 AFY,
still more than twice the required minimum discharge of 12,420 AFY at the Riverside Narrows.
Therefore, the project would not deprive lower watershed water rights holders of their
entitlements since the required contribution would be achievable with the remaining water. In
addition, as other recycled water projects are implemented, Valley District would still be required
to maintain a minimum flow to meet the obligations of the Stipulated Judgment.
Comment OCWD-2
The OCWD letter provides a list of cumulative projects that it states should have been included in
the cumulative projects list.
Response to OCWD-2
Cumulative Prado Basin Vegetation Reduction
The projects list provided in the comment letter is largely generic in that it names various cities
and agencies but mostly not specific projects. The cumulative analysis in the DEIR can only
consider projects relevant to the Project and known at the time of its circulation, and cannot
speculate on unknown, remote, or speculative future projects (Pala Band of Mission Indians v.
County of San Diego, 68 Cal. App. 4th 556, 576–577 (4th Dist. 1998); Newberry Springs Water
Assn. v. County of San Bernardino, 150 Cal. App. 3d 740, 750 (4th Dist. 1984)). The DEIR's
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-50 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
consideration of probable future projects may properly be limited to those for which applications
have been filed when the notice of preparation of the DEIR was released or when the completed
project application is filed. (Gray v. County of Madera, 167 Cal. App. 4th 1099 (5th Dist. 2008)).
The OCWD letter does identify the Clean Water Factory; however, this cumulative project, for
which its own notice of preparation was filed in November 2014, was included in the DEIR Table
4-1, Cumulative Project List, along with a number of other specific recycled water projects.
The DEIR concludes on page 4-13 that cumulative reductions of surface flow into Prado Basin
would result in the gradual reduction of either quantity or health of the riparian vegetation. As
evaluated in the WEI and Stetson reports provided with the comment letter, the future cumulative
impact may significantly reduce vegetation cover compared with existing conditions. The DEIR
recognizes this future potentially significant cumulative impact. However, Mitigation Measure
BIO-3 includes commitments to remove invasive species within the river segment most affected
by the reduced discharge. The removal of invasive species such as arundo donax creates space for
native vegetation to emerge, thereby increasing native riparian vegetation compared to existing
conditions. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(a)(3), the DEIR concludes that the
proposed project’s contribution to the future cumulative condition would be less than
considerable based on the implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-3.
Please see Response to Comment USFWS-13and CBD-8.
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-51 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter – San Bernardino County Department of
Public Works (SBCDPW)
Comment SBCDPW-1
The comment states that page 2-15 should include more detail on how the water is to be
discharged into City Creek. The comment states that there is no information regarding how the
new vegetation will be managed so that the hydraulic capacity of the system is maintained.
Response to SBCDPW-1
The DEIR identifies the proposed discharge locations into City Creek in Figures 2-7a through 2-
7b. The DEIR describes the size and components of the discharge structures on page 2-15. The
discharge structures will be made of reinforced concrete and include a velocity dissipation
component. Mitigation Measure HYDRO-3 requires velocity dissipation features to be approved
by the SBCFCD and the USACE. Additionally, the DEIR recognizes that the new riparian
vegetation would influence flood flows. The DEIR concludes on page 3.9-25 that the City Creek
channel width provides for ample flood flow. Mitigation Measure HYDRO-4 requires that Valley
District prepare and implement a vegetation management plan in coordination with SBCFCD and
CDFW that accounts for periodic vegetation trimming as needed to ensure that the vital flood
functions of the channel are not compromised.
Comment SBCDPW-2
The comment states that a 408 permit from the USACE is required and that more information is
needed on the anticipated improvements within the basins on how the imported water will be
stored for percolation. The comment states that cross dikes will need to be repaired and should be
outlined in the document along with more information on maintenance in the system for both the
recharge and the flood control capacity.
Response to SBCDPW-2
The DEIR recognizes in Table 2-9 that a permit would be required pursuant to Section 408 of the
Rivers and Harbors Act for impacts to USACE flood control infrastructure. The DEIR assumes
that since the function of East Twin Creek Spreading Grounds is currently to detain water for
percolation, major modifications would not be necessary and that the proposed project’s
contribution of water would be compatible and complementary to the SBCFCD’s stated mission
of water conservation. The DEIR recognizes in Mitigation Measures HYDRO-3 and HYDRO-4
that coordination with the SBCFCD would be required to ensure compatibility.
Comment SBCDPW-3
The comment states that there is not a planned facility in a San Bernardino County Flood Control
District basin for potential project drainage within Plunge Creek. The comment states that there
should be more information on where the basin is and what the impacts are.
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-52 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
Response to SBCDPW-3
The DEIR describes a potential alternative recharge site near the confluence of Plunge Creek and
the SAR. Table 6-2 of the DEIR compares the alternative with the other project alternatives and
concludes that impacts to land use and biological resources would be greater than the preferred
alternative.
Comment SBCDPW-4
The comment states that the proposal to “increase habitat availability” in Rialto Channel by
furnishing cool freshwater into the system is not a natural condition for this channel. The
comment states that this may increase vegetation and decrease channel capacity, which will
decrease the District’s ability to construct future improvements.
Response to SBCDPW-4
The DEIR identifies the introduction of supplemental water into Rialto Channel as an opportunity
to improve water quality to benefit aquatic habitat during summer months when water
temperatures are very high. The goal of this measure is to increase the temporal availability of
suitable habitat by reducing water temperatures in the summer to a level below the tolerance
threshold of the species. Since this is a measure primarily designed to be used in the summer
months when storms are infrequent and since the water augmentation would be managed in
coordination with SBCFCD, the measure would not affect flood capacity in the channel. In
addition, the DEIR concludes that the introduction of cooler water would not substantially
increase vegetation cover that could impede flood functions, but rather may reduce or prevent
some invasive plant species’ colonization such as red alga in Rialto Channel. The use of the
channel for this purpose would require coordination with the SBCFCD.
Please see Responses to Comments USFWS-10 and USFWS-11.
Comment SBCDPW-5
The comment states that the proposed project should ensure that the flood protection of the
District’s facilities is not compromised.
Response to SBCDPW-5
The DEIR identifies that discharge to City Creek and the introduction of supplemental water into
Rialto Channel are opportunities to benefit aquatic and riparian habitat in a manner that benefits
regional stakeholders and helps achieve co-equal goals of flood control and water conservation.
The DEIR recognizes in Mitigation Measures HYDRO-3 and HYDRO-4 that coordination with
the SBCFCD would be required to ensure compatibility.
Comment SBCDPW-6
The comment states that any work within the District right-of-way will require a permit.
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-53 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
Response to SBCDPW-6
The DEIR recognizes in Table 2-9 that encroachment permits from SBCFCD would be required
to implement project components within SBCFCD-owned facilities.
Comment SBCDPW-7
The comment states that SBVMWD will be responsible for any vector control and vegetative
management issues caused by the discharge.
Response to SBCDPW-7
The proposed project would be operated by Valley District and management of the percolation
sites including the need for vector control would be Valley District’s responsibility as the project
owner and operator.
Comment SBCDPW-8
The comment states that any proposed connections to, or work on, District land, will require a
permit.
Response to SBCDPW-8
The DEIR recognizes in Table 2-9 that encroachment permits from SBCFCD would be required
to implement project components within SBCFCD-owned facilities.
Comment SBCDPW-9
The comment states that District land is not to be offered/used as mitigation for any agency other
than the District unless specifically authorized by the District and the County of San Bernardino
Board of Supervisors.
Response to SBCDPW-9
The proposed discharge to City Creek would provide ancillary benefit to biological resources
since riparian and aquatic habitat would emerge in the creek bed, but the project does not identify
this benefit as mitigation for any project impact. Rather, Mitigation Measure BIO-3 lists six
distinct actions that would mitigate for impacts of reduced flow in the SAR. They include
managing the river segment below the RIX discharge in such a way as to improve habitat quantity
and quality. The DEIR recognizes in Table 2-9 that encroachment permits from SBCFCD would
be required to implement project components within SBCFCD-owned facilities.
Valley District, as one of the regional agencies responsible for managing water supplies in San
Bernardino County, looks forward to collaborating with the County on projects that benefit the
entire region. In many cases, such regional collaboration along with CDFW and USFWS will
enable the County and Valley District to accomplish needed projects more quickly and more
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-54 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
economically, thereby benefitting the public that we all serve. In many cases, public agencies will
need to use each other’s property to accomplish mutually beneficial purposes; Valley District
anticipates that the County will work cooperatively with Valley District and others to promote the
expedited permitting of projects to achieve the shared public benefit and mission.
Comment SBCDPW-10
The comment states that the introduction of trees and the establishment of riparian vegetation
may impede the ability of the system to convey the gravels downstream and will have an impact
on the overall geomorphology of the system.
Response to SBCDPW-10
The DEIR recognizes that the new riparian vegetation would influence flood flows. The DEIR
concludes on page 3.9-25 that the City Creek channel width provides for ample flood flow.
Mitigation Measure HYDRO-4 requires that Valley District prepare and implement a vegetation
management plan in coordination with SBCFCD and CDFW that accounts for periodic vegetation
trimming as needed to ensure that the vital flood functions of the channel are not compromised.
The new riparian vegetation in City Creek would assist in stabilizing the center of the channel,
but the addition of riparian vegetation would not substantially impede sediment transport in the
system which is largely influenced by major storm flows.
Comment SBCDPW-11
The comment states that page ES-10 BIO-3 Disturbance to SAS discusses measures to reduce
potential project related impacts. The comment states that the proposed mitigation measures in no
way allows for other agencies to utilize District land for mitigation.
Response to SBCDPW-11
The proposed discharge to City Creek would provide ancillary benefit to biological resources
since riparian and aquatic habitat would emerge in the creek bed, but the project does not identify
this benefit as mitigation for any project impact. Rather, Mitigation Measure BIO-3 lists six
distinct actions that would mitigate for impacts of reduced flow in the SAR. They include
managing the river segment below the RIX discharge in such a way as to improve habitat quantity
and quality. The DEIR recognizes in Table 2-9 that encroachment permits from SBCFCD would
be required to implement the project components on land owned by the County or within
SBCFCD facilities.
Valley District, as one of the regional agencies responsible for managing water supplies in San
Bernardino County, looks forward to collaborating with the County on projects that benefit the
entire region. In many cases, such regional collaboration along with CDFW and USFWS will
enable the County and Valley District to accomplish needed projects more quickly and more
economically, thereby benefitting the public that we all serve. In many cases, public agencies will
need to use each other’s property to accomplish mutually beneficial purposes; Valley District
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-55 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
anticipates that the County will work cooperatively with Valley District and others to promote the
expedited permitting of projects to achieve the shared public benefit and mission.
Comment SBCDPW-12
The comment states that the proposed discharge locations identified by Figure 2-7 are concerning
due to the fact that these locations are vegetated with RAFSS and known to be occupied by San
Bernardino kangaroo rat (SBKR), Santa Ana River woolly star (SAWS) and many other sensitive
species.
Response to SBCDPW-12
The DEIR recognizes on page 3.4-44 through 3.4-47 that the discharge locations would be
located in areas of natural habitats such as RAFSS that support special status plants and wildlife
such as SBKR and SAWS. Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2 outline impact minimization
and compensation strategies to ensure that impacts to these species are not significant. To provide
further assurances that any impacts will be properly mitigated, Valley District is committed to a
1:1 mitigation ratio for temporary habitat impacts resulting from construction, and a 3:1 ratio for
permanent impacts to RAFSS and associated species.
Please see Response to Comments USFWS-12, CBD-3, CBD-6, CBD-11 and CDFW-1.
Comment SBCDPW-13
The comment states that the document is not clear how the project proponent proposes to
significantly impact an existing habitat occupied by multiple listed species to the benefit of
another.
Response to SBCDPW-13
The DEIR recognizes that introduction of perennial flow within City Creek will modify the
condition of the creek bed. Riparian habitat will emerge, replacing existing RAFSS scrub within
the center of the creek, leaving the wide creek flood plain unaffected. The DEIR concludes that
the addition of perennial flows within the creek would contribute to a native ecosystem within an
area of overlapping habitat values. The proposed project would not create a new creek where one
did not previously exist. The addition of water in a creek bed that is surrounded by RAFSS will
enhance the integration and preservation of native species in this watershed subject to conditions
of approval by the wildlife management agencies, including the USFWS. The DEIR concludes
that this conversion does not require compensation of RAFSS habitat elsewhere. However, as
noted in response to SBCDPW-12, Valley District has nevertheless committed to a 1:1 mitigation
ratio for temporary habitat impacts resulting from construction, and a 3:1 ratio for permanent
impacts to RAFSS and associated species.
Please see Responses to Comments CDFW-1, CBD-7, CBD-8, CBD-9, CBD-11 and OCWD-1.
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-56 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
Comment SBCDPW-14
The comment states that the District will require long term maintenance permits to maintain the
riparian vegetation ensuring Flood Control requirements are met.
Response to SBCDPW-14
Mitigation Measure HYDRO-4 requires that Valley District prepare a vegetation management
plan within City Creek, in coordination with the Flood Control District. Implementation of this
plan would be included in the Streambed Alteration Agreement and Endangered Species Act
conditions of approval.
Comment SBCDPW-15
The comment states that there is no information regarding the impacts of species within the San
Bernardino International Airport Authority property or proposed mitigation measures.
Response to SBCDPW-15
Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2 cover impacts to any construction zone that may support
special status plants or animals including on the SBIAA property.
Comment SBCDPW-16
The comment states that the proposed drainages and the habitat enhancement offered as
mitigation must be authorized by the District due to the fact that District land is not to be utilized
as mitigation for any agency other than the District.
Response to SBCDPW-16
The proposed discharge to City Creek would provide ancillary benefit to biological resources
since riparian and aquatic habitat would emerge in the creek bed, but the project does not identify
this benefit as mitigation for any project impact.
Valley District, as one of the regional agencies responsible for managing water supplies in San
Bernardino County, looks forward to collaborating with the County on projects that benefit the
entire region. In many cases, such regional collaboration along with CDFW and USFWS will
enable the County and Valley District to accomplish needed projects more quickly and more
economically, thereby benefitting the public that we all serve. In many cases, public agencies will
need to use each other’s property to accomplish mutually beneficial purposes; Valley District
anticipates that the County will work cooperatively with Valley District and others to promote the
expedited permitting of projects to achieve the shared public benefit and mission.
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-57 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
Comment SBCDPW-17
The comment suggests that the DEIR should address species other than SAS and proposes to
obtain approval from United States Fish and Wildlife Services (USFWS) and California
Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW).
Response to SBCDPW-17
Mitigation Measure BIO-3 is focused on mitigating impacts to SAS. The DEIR concludes based
on the Reduced Discharge Study that the reduced flow would not have significant adverse
impacts to any other special status species. However, the project proposes to offset impacts to
habitat and species as appropriate based on the project-level direct, indirect, and cumulative
impacts.
Please see Responses to Comments CDFW-1, CDFW-4, CDFW-5, CBD-3, CBD-5, CBD-6,
CBD-7, USFWS-12, USFWS-13, and USFWS-14.
Comment SBCDPW-18
The comment states that the HMMP mitigation measures proposed on Page 3.4-57 to address
impacts to SAS would all occur on District property. The comment states that this in no way
allows for other agencies to utilize District land for mitigation.
Response to SBCDPW-18
Valley District, as one of the regional agencies responsible for managing water supplies in San
Bernardino County, looks forward to collaborating with the County on projects that benefit the
entire region. In many cases, such regional collaboration along with CDFW and USFWS will
enable the County and Valley District to accomplish needed projects more quickly and more
economically, thereby benefitting the public that we all serve. In many cases, public agencies will
need to use each other’s property to accomplish mutually beneficial purposes; Valley District
anticipates that the County will work cooperatively with Valley District and others to promote the
expedited permitting of projects to achieve the shared public benefit and mission.
Comment SBCDPW-19
The comment states the mitigation measure discussed in the Implementation of Mitigation
Measure BIO-1 needs to include permanent impacts to plants such as slender-horned spineflower
and Santa Ana River Woolly-Star as the habitat would be left unsuitable. The comment states that
this mitigation measure needs to address temporary and permanent impacts to SBKR.
Response to SBCDPW-19
The DEIR recognizes on page 3.4-44 through 3.4-47 that the discharge locations would
be located in areas of natural habitats such as RAFSS that support special status plants
and wildlife such as SBKR, SAWS and slender-horned spineflower. Mitigation Measures
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-58 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
BIO-1 and BIO-2 outline impact minimization and compensation strategies to ensure that
impacts to these species are not significant.
Please see Responses to Comments CDFW-1, CBD-5, CBD-9, CBD-11 and OCWD-1.
Comment SBCDPW-20
The comment states that the District was led to believe that the HCP was for multiple species, not
just the SAS. The comment suggests that this should be clearer.
Response to SBCDPW-20
Mitigation Measure BIO-3 commits Valley District to participating in the Upper SAR HCP as a
means of mitigating the project’s contribution to effects on SAS. The SNRC DEIR focuses on
project-related direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts. The full content and purposes of the HCP
are not considered in the DEIR. However, as noted on the HCP website www.sarhcp.com a total
of 22 special status species are proposed for coverage by the HCP. The HCP fully plans to
implement a comprehensive conservation strategy that will secure, enhance, and manage habitat
for all covered species in perpetuity.
Comment SBCDPW-21
The comment states that there is concern for relocating the animals discussed in Mitigation
Measure BIO-2. The comment states that the relocation may not be feasible and the disturbance
to adjacent habitat would be a further impact.
Response to SBCDPW-21
Mitigation Measure BIO-2 commits Valley District to a mitigation strategy that includes
performance standards to mitigate for the project’s impacts to special-status species. The
mitigation would be conducted in consultation with the wildlife agencies. Implementation of the
mitigation would follow best practices outlined in conservation measures imposed by agency
approval.
Comment SBCDPW-22
The comment states that Mitigation Measure BIO-3 includes measures to reduce invasive
vegetation in the river corridor and that this mitigation may not occur within District lands.
Response to SBCDPW-22
Mitigation Measure BIO-3 lists six distinct actions that would mitigate for impacts of reduced
flow in the SAR. They include managing the river segment below the RIX discharge in such a
way as to improve habitat quantity and quality. The DEIR recognizes in Table 2-9 that
encroachment permits from SBCFCD would be required to implement project components within
SBCFCD-owned facilities.
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-59 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
Valley District, as one of the regional agencies responsible for managing water supplies in San
Bernardino County, looks forward to collaborating with the County on projects that benefit the
entire region. In many cases, such regional collaboration along with CDFW and USFWS will
enable the County and Valley District to accomplish needed projects more quickly and more
economically, thereby benefitting the public that we all serve. In many cases, public agencies will
need to use each other’s property to accomplish mutually beneficial purposes; Valley District
anticipates that the County will work cooperatively with Valley District and others to promote the
expedited permitting of projects to achieve the shared public benefit and mission.
Comment SBCDPW-23
The comment states that any potential significant impacts resulting from implementation of a
mitigation measure must be fully discussed, disclosed and minimized.
Response to SBCDPW-23
Valley District does not believe there will be significant adverse impacts resulting from any
proposed mitigation measure. Development of the HMMP will occur in coordination with the
Wildlife Agencies to ensure that all mitigation related impacts are reduced to the maximum extent
possible and the net value of each measure provides long-term benefit to the species and their
habitats.
Comment SBCDPW-24
The comment states the proposed project would need to be reviewed and addressed by both the
District’s and Transportations Operations Divisions to ensure public facilities are not
compromised, impeded, or disrupted.
Response to SBCDPW-24
Valley District looks forward to discussing potential mutual benefits of the project with SBCFCD
at its earliest convenience.
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-60 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter – San Bernardino County Regional Parks
(SBCRP)
San Bernardino County Regional Parks has no comment regarding the Sterling Natural Resource
Center Draft EIR.
Response to SBCRP
The comment is noted for the record and no response to comment is necessary.
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-61 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter – San Bernardino Municipal Water District
(SBMWD)
Comment SBMWD-1
The comment states that SBMWD supports the goal of increasing recycled water use but has
questions about the project and its potential impacts. SBMWD states that the project as proposed
requires SBMWD approvals and cooperation to implement the project. The comment expresses
concern that the project could adversely affect the SBMWD proposed Clean Water Factory and
downstream water delivery obligations while duplicating services. SBMWD requests more
information and clarification as set forth in the comment letter.
Response to SBMWD-1
Valley District recognizes the importance of coordination with SBMWD and proposes the SNRC
to be complementary to the Clean Water Factory, achieving several aligned goals. Valley District
and East Valley Water District have met with SBMWD on numerous occasions to evaluate
opportunities to combine resources and cooperate on a regional basis. The SNRC is intended to
provide substantial benefit to the City of San Bernardino and SBMWD through construction of a
treatment facility in the upper watershed that would recharge the groundwater basin in a manner
that serves the entire region, including the City. Rather than adversely impacting the SBMWD’s
recycled water goals, Valley District, as the regional water wholesale agency, proposes the
project to further advance many of the goals of the Clean Water Factory and to assist the City
with an expedited recycled water project for the benefit of the entire region.
Comment SBMWD-2
The comment states that the cost for wastewater treatment will be significantly higher for EVWD
customers due to technologies proposed and economies of scale. The comment states that rates
will likely increase but City of San Bernardino residents will receive no benefit.
Response to SBMWD-2
An Update of the Recycled Water Feasibility Study was prepared in 2015 that evaluated the cost
of treatment with and without the project. The Feasibility Study concluded that implementation of
the project would result in lower rate increases in the future compared with the No Project
condition (Feasibility Study, Table 12-7). The estimated capital and O & M costs were developed
based on a survey of similar facilities that utilize Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) technology to
achieve tertiary/Title 22 treated water quality standards. A data base of approximately 25 recent
treatment plants utilizing MBR technology was compiled, with the capital cost for each facility
adjusted to the local/current Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index. The EVWD
ratepayers, including the 8,350 connections located in the City of San Bernardino, can expect
project benefits from reduced future costs as a result of the project. In addition, the reuse of
recycled water would present a substantial regional water supply benefit to all water customers of
the region through groundwater recharge in the Bunker Hill Groundwater Basin.
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-62 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
Please see Response to Comment LAFCO-4.
Comment SBMWD-3
The comment states that there is insufficient information on the proposed SNRC design flow and
diversion of treatment.
Response to SBMWD-3
As noted on page 2-6 of the DEIR, the project would divert all of the existing EVWD flow,
identified as 6 MGD, and future flow from the EVWD service area to the new SNRC Treatment
Facility.
Comment SBMWD-4
The comment asks for more information about the design of the proposed lift station, including.
such information as the peaking factor and the type of daily flow the 5.4 MGD represents.
Response to SBMWD-4
The proposed lift station would be designed to accommodate existing and future (year 2035)
flows as projected in EVWD’s 2013 Wastewater Collection System Master Plan. The design flow
parameters are shown in the following table.
Existing Flow
(MGD)
2035 Projected Flow
(MGD)
Average Dry Weather Flow 1.92 2.29
Peak Wet Weather Flow 4.85 5.36
Design Capacity 5.4
Comment SBMWD-5
The comment states that during shutdowns of the RIX facility, discharge to the Santa Ana River
from the RIX does not occur.
Response to SBMWD-5
Under current conditions, the RIX facility periodically shuts down for maintenance purposes,
which eliminates discharges. The proposed project would not modify this existing operation and
maintenance function of RIX or its associated impacts, which will remain the responsibility of the
facility operator. However, the proposed project provides the ability to temporarily discharge
supplemental water into the SAR from local groundwater wells via the Rialto Channel if
necessary for environmental needs that may include supplementing river flows during planned
RIX shut downs. Valley District and EVWD propose to enter into a cooperative agreement with
the City of San Bernardino and the SBMWD to develop and construct appropriate bypass
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-63 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
arrangements to allow for the discharge of flows from the proposed project (including discharges
from wells) during periods when RIX discharges are eliminated for purpose of maintenance. Such
an agreement would have a beneficial effect on listed aquatic species in the SAR and would not
disturb habitat for listed terrestrial species in areas adjacent to the RIX facility.
Comment SBMWD-6
The comment states that biosolids are not disposed or generated at the RIX facility but at the
SBWRP.
Response to SBMWD-6
This corrective comment is noted for inclusion in the record. In response to this comment, the
following changes have been made on page 2-11 of the DEIR.
Biosolids Dewatering and Offloading
Screw presses would be employed for biosolids dewatering. Biosolids, would be hauled
offsite either to soil augmentation reuse facilities or to a landfill such as the San Timoteo
Landfill for disposal. An offloading facility would be constructed that would convey
treated biosolids onto haul trucks. The facility would generate less than five biosolids
haul trucks per day on average. The San Timoteo landfill is located approximately 7
miles from the SNRC. Biosolids reuse opportunities such as land application may be
utilized in the San Joaquin Valley or Arizona. Truck trips up to 250 miles to Kings
County or 300 miles to Arizona may be necessary. Biosolids are currently processed at
the SBWRP and reused for composting. This is consistent with current biosolids reuse
and disposal activities from the RIX facility.
Comment SBMWD-7
The comment expresses concern that not enough information is presented in the DEIR about the
supplemental water wells or the water that would be distributed from them to the SAR. In
addition, the comment states the DEIR does not identify that these wells would require a NPDES
permit.
Response to SBMWD-7
The DEIR notes on page 3.9-24 that groundwater levels may be lowered during use of the
supplemental water wells. The DEIR concludes that the reduction in groundwater levels would be
offset by the infiltration of the discharge in the SAR, which exhibits high infiltration rates below
the RIX discharge.
Mitigation Measure BIO-3 provides the mechanism to introduce groundwater into the Rialto
Channel to benefit habitat by reducing water temperatures in the Rialto Channel or providing
supplemental flows during RIX shutdowns. The goal of this measure is to increase the temporal
availability of suitable habitat by reducing water temperatures in the summer to a level below the
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-64 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
tolerance threshold of the species. Based on analysis conducted by the USGS, it appears possible
to reduce the water temperature from the current 89 degrees Fahrenheit to below 85 degrees
Fahrenheit (the maximum tolerance of SAS) with approximately 2 cfs of groundwater, for a total
of about 365 acre feet per year if introduced from July to September. The use of this measure
would be on an appropriate scale related to the level of project impact and refined in coordination
with the wildlife agencies through the permitting processes and development of the HMMP.
Success criteria and a monitoring plan for this mitigation measure will be included in the HMMP.
The DEIR concludes that, as one component of a broad mitigation strategy, providing
supplemental water during the summer months in coordination with the wildlife agencies
provides benefits compared to existing conditions and is commensurate with the scale of project-
level effects. The habitat condition triggers and success criteria will be developed in coordination
with the Wildlife Agencies and USGS for inclusion in the HMMP.
In response to the comment, Table 2-9 has been modified to include that the use of the
supplemental water wells would require a low-threat discharge permit from the RWQCB. Valley
District would be subject to groundwater quality monitoring imposed by the permit.
Comment SBMWD-8
The comment states that the proposed use of the SAR pipeline interferes with planned use by
SBMWD to implement the proposed Clean Water Factory. The comment states that the SAR
pipeline is not available for SNRC. If it were available, it would affect SBMWD’s NPDES permit
20:1 dilution ratio, require additional pipeline in the WRP, and potentially cause liability for
discharging commingled effluent.
Response to SBMWD-8
The DEIR notes on page 2-34 that an agreement with the City of San Bernardino would be
required to re-purpose the SAR Pipeline for the proposed project. This component of the
proposed project, as noted above, presents opportunities for both the City and Valley District to
effectively manage SAR discharges, and provides for the assurance that flows to the SAR from
RIX could be maintained if necessary until the proposed project is fully permitted. However, if
the SAR Pipeline were not made available to Valley District, the proposed project still could be
implemented without this discharge option, recognizing that no diversion of existing wastewater
flow to RIX would be allowable until either the HCP or HMMP were approved by the USFWS
under Section 7 or 10 of the Endangered Species Act.
The DEIR concludes that since the wastewater is already a component of the RIX discharge, a
source control assessment would not be required, nor would the introduction of tertiary-treated
effluent to RIX via the SAR Pipeline require any modifications to the existing RIX NPDES
discharge permit. The Santa Ana RWQCB has informally suggested that permit modifications
would not likely be necessary. The additional treatment would benefit the RIX system and may
improve the quality of the discharge to the SAR. Furthermore, the comingled effluent would not
increase any liability for the City since a cooperative agreement that addresses any such liability
would be required.
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-65 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
The NPDES permit for the RIX facility provides for two sets of discharge requirements for
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD), Total Suspended Solids (TSS), and Coliform, depending
on whether the discharge is below or above a 20:1 dilution ratio to flow in the Santa Ana River.
The two sets of discharge requirements for these parameters are shown in the table below.
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-66 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
TABLE 2-9
DISCRETIONARY PERMITS POTENTIALLY REQUIRED
Agency
Permits and
Authorizations Potentially Required
Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB) • National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) for
discharge to City Creek
• Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) for groundwater
replenishment reuse projects under California Title 22
• SWPPP for inclusion in General Stormwater NPDES Permit for
Construction Activities
• General Stormwater NPDES for Industrial Facilities
• Low Threat Discharge NPDES for supplemental water discharges
• 401 Water Quality Certification;
State Water Resources Control Board • California Water Code Section 1211 Change in Point of
Discharge
SBCFCD • Encroachment permit for discharge facilities
• Easement, and/or license agreement for use of recharge facilities
South Coast Air Quality Management District
(SCAQMD) • Permit to operate treatment facility
• Permits to operate cogeneration facility and emergency
generators
East Valley Water District • Approval to modify collection system
City of Highland • Encroachment permit for construction in roadways
• Department review permit for Administration Center
City of Redlands • Encroachment permit for construction in roadways
• Approval for use of Redlands Basins
City of San Bernardino • Encroachment permit for construction in roadways
• Approval to re-purpose SAR Pipeline
City of Rialto • Approval for use of groundwater wells.
Caltrans • Encroachment permit for construction in roadways and
undercrossings
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers • Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit
• 408 Permit (if necessary)
California Department of Fish and Wildlife • Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement
• Endangered Species Act compliance 2081
US Fish and Wildlife Service • Endangered Species Act compliance Section 7/Section 10
Federal Aviation Administration • Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-67 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
Without 20:1 Dilution With 20:1 Dilution
Parameter Units Avg. Monthly Avg. Weekly Avg. Monthly Avg. Weekly
BOD mg/l 20 30 30 45
TSS mg/l 20 30 30 45
Avg. Weekly Max/30 Days Avg. Weekly Max/7 Days
Coliform MPN 2.2
(Cannot exceed
2.2 on any day
during a
calendar week.)
23
(Cannot exceed
23 in more than
one sample in
any 30-day
period.)
23
(Cannot exceed
23 on any day
during a
calendar week.)
23
(Cannot exceed
23 in more than
one sample in
any 7-day
period.)
These discharge requirements would not be affected by the alternative where SNRC tertiary
treated wastewater is discharged to the SAR via the RIX facility, since the discharge from RIX
would be nearly identical with or without the SNRC facility. Further, the ability of the RIX
facility to meet its discharge requirements may be enhanced and treatment costs could be reduced
due to the higher quality influent into RIX that would result from an initial 6 MGD of tertiary
treated effluent from the SNRC replacing a similar flow of secondary treated effluent from the
SBMWD Water Reclamation Plant (SBWRP).
For those alternatives where the SNRC tertiary treated effluent is discharged to Redlands Basin,
City Creek, East Twin Creek Spreading Grounds, or any other location and not via the RIX
facility, the potential impact on RIX operations relative to the 20:1 dilution ratio would be to
increase the number of days that the discharge would be under the less restrictive discharge
requirements. In other words, since the discharge from RIX would be reduced, the RIX discharge
could meet the 20:1 dilution requirement with less flow in the river, hence it could meet the 20:1
dilution requirement more often, reducing the number of days the more restrictive discharge
requirements would need to be met.
Finally, the DEIR recognizes that a bypass pipeline would be required to move the tertiary-treated
effluent from SNRC around the SBWRP facility to access the RIX discharge pipeline. The bypass
pipeline would be constructed by Valley District and would require approval by the City.
Comment SBMWD-9
The comment states that the conclusion of “Significant and Unavoidable” impact is not supported
by the evidence or impact analysis, is overly conservative, and may result in a jeopardy opinion.
Response to SBMWD-9
Valley District as Lead Agency has evaluated the potential impact to the Santa Ana sucker and
has independently concluded based on substantial evidence that impacts should be considered
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-68 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
significant and unavoidable. The conclusion is not based on an established habitat suitability
threshold, which is not available, but rather on a qualitative threshold based on the fact that any
new adverse effect on an already significantly impacted species should be considered as
substantial. As a result, the DEIR concludes that the project would result in a significant and
unavoidable impact.
The DEIR identifies a reasonable threshold of significance on page 3.4-42 that states that a
significant impact would occur if the project would “have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or indirectly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by CDFW
or USFWS.” The DEIR summarizes the results of a hydrology study prepared for the project that
estimates the impacts of a 6 MGD flow reduction on SAR depth and velocity. The DEIR
concludes that although impacts to depth and velocity would be minor (page 3.4-51), any new
contribution to the stress on a listed species should be considered “substantial.” The primary
reason for this conclusion is the fact that the project would reduce base flows in the SAR by
between 18 and 21 percent. The reduction of flows by about one-fifth readily satisfies the
criterion that the project may have a “substantial adverse effect” on the Santa Ana sucker. An
additional set of reasons for this conclusion stems from the fact that the Santa Ana sucker is
already suffering from a variety of stressors, including but not limited to decreased groundwater
levels that have transformed the portion of the SAR occupied by the Santa Ana sucker from a
“gaining reach” to a “losing reach”; the invasion of red alga (an invasive species) that reduces the
available food supply; and predatory fish species. Faced with this significant and substantial set
of stressors, it was reasonable for the DEIR to conclude that the incremental effect of the project
would result in a significant impact and contribute considerably to a cumulative impact. New
“best available information” on habitat suitability thresholds would not change this conclusion.
This impact conclusion is within the discretion of the Lead Agency based on the substantial
evidence provided in the DEIR.
Finally, the determination of whether an action would result in a jeopardy opinion is the sole
responsibility of the USFWS. The DEIR presents the results of technical studies and evaluates
mitigation measures to reduce project impacts. Valley District has concluded that a jeopardy
opinion can best be avoided through development of mitigation measures to minimize effects and
to plan for species recovery as a cooperative stakeholder.
Comment SBMWD-10
The comment states that high flow pulse events may not be feasible.
Response to SBMWD-10
The DEIR recognizes that implementation of mitigation measures that require cooperation by the
City and the SBMWD is contingent on their approval. The list of commitments in Mitigation
Measure BIO-3 provides a performance standard for these mitigation measures. USFWS and
CDFW will consider issuing permits for the project based on the combination of mitigation
commitments that are feasible and have a high likelihood of being implemented. Valley District,
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-69 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
as noted above, seeks to cooperate with the City and SBMWD to implement the mitigation
measures described in the DEIR. If cooperation cannot be achieved, Valley District intends to
develop other sources of water (e.g., groundwater wells or the use of turnouts owned or operated
by other water agencies) to provide the necessary pulse flows. Given the number of large
pipelines in the vicinity of the RIX facility, such alternative arrangements are feasible.
Comment SBMWD-11
The comment states that the RIX discharge does not support spawning habitat.
Response to SBMWD-11
The DEIR recognizes that SAS spawning habitat exists within the Rialto Channel above the RIX
discharge. However, current data shows that SAS spawning also occurs downstream of the RIX
discharge point. Most recently, larval SAS were observed in areas downstream of the RIX
discharge in June 2015.
Comment SBMWD-12
The comment states that the project would impact groundwater quality and that mitigation
measures are inadequate to mitigate the potential effects.
Response to SBMWD-12
The DEIR concludes on page 3.9-22 that the anticipated TDS concentrations of the effluent
would not exceed the assimilative capacity of the basin. The requirement to meet groundwater
quality objectives including TDS would be a requirement of the discharge permit from the
RWQCB that would include an anti-degradation analysis. The proposed project would be subject
to the discharge permit requirements established by the RWQCB. The comment speculates that
the RWQCB would be unwilling either to encourage the use of recycled water within the San
Bernardino Basin Area (notwithstanding the State’s General Permit for recycled water or the
Recycled Water Policy) or to adopt a “maximum benefit” discharge permit as was done in the
Chino Basin. However, discussions with the SWRCB and the RWQCB indicate that these
regulatory agencies support the use of recycled water and so would be willing to issue the
necessary permits.
Comment SBMWD-13
The comment states that the Bunker Hill groundwater management zones have little or no
capacity for assimilation of TDS.
Response to SBMWD-13
A primary objective of the proposed project is to replenish groundwater with recycled water to
meet local demands. Table 11-1 shows the assimilative capacity of TDS and Nitrate (as N) in the
relevant groundwater subbasins. Bunker Hill A subbasin (which would receive discharges via
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-70 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
East Twin Creek Spreading Grounds) has ambient TDS and N levels that exceed Basin Plan
standards established by the Santa Ana RWQCB; as such, no assimilative capacity currently
exists for a 10 MGD discharge to that subbasin. Bunker Hill B subbasin (which would receive
discharges via City Creek and Redlands Basins) has ambient TDS and N levels well below Basin
Plan standards; as such, assimilative capacity does currently exist for a 10 MGD discharge to that
subbasin. Antidegradation modeling currently underway suggests that proposed project
discharges can be assimilated into the two subbasins within Basin Plan limits if a majority of
Project discharges are recharged into Bunker Hill B, along with blending with Valley District’s
planned surface water recharge project (6,000 AFY) at East Twin Creek Spreading Grounds.
Receipt of an NPDES permit from Santa Ana RWQCB, in collaboration with DDW, would
ensure that proposed project discharges comply with Basin Plan standards and are accommodated
within the subbasins’ assimilative capacity.
TABLE 11-1
BASIN PLAN OBJECTIVES AND AMBIENT WATER QUALITY
Constituent
Bunker Hill A Bunker Hill B
TDS N TDS N
Basin Plan Objective (mg/L) 310 2.7 330 7.3
Ambient Water Quality (mg/L) 340 4.0 280 5.6
Recycled Water Quality (mg/L) 463 5.5 463 5.5
Mitigation Measure HYDRO-2 requires that Valley District implement a groundwater monitoring
program in conjunction with the replenishment. The monitoring program would assist in
managing the groundwater basin effectively to maintain beneficial uses and to protect public
health. Receipt of and compliance with an NPDES permit would ensure that no local drinking
water wells are adversely affected by proposed project discharges. However, with the
establishment of a groundwater monitoring network, water quality can be measured and recorded
to evaluate potential impacts and implement corrective measures, if required. The identified
corrective measures include modification of treatment of the replenishment water, or modification
of operations of the well that may require providing replacement water until the water quality
issue is corrected. The Mitigation Measure provides no specific modifications since those would
depend on the water quality impairment identified during monitoring.
Groundwater modeling reports conducted by Valley District for each of the proposed recharge
locations are included in Appendix I.
Comment SBMWD-14
The comment states the belief that the RWQCB cannot make the required antidegredation
analysis findings, given the circumstances of the project. The comment also states that Valley
District has a separate CEQA obligation to evaluate and disclose potential impacts associated
with an exceedance of water quality objectives and assimilative capacity.
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-71 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
Response to SBMWD-14
As part of the NPDES permitting process, Santa Ana RWQCB and DDW would ensure that
proposed project discharges comply with Basin Plan standards and groundwater replenishment
regulations.1 Antidegradation modeling is currently underway as part of the permitting process.
Preliminary modeling results demonstrate that proposed project discharges can be assimilated
into the Bunker Hill subbasins. This EIR evaluates potential groundwater quality impacts
associated with project discharges in Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality; no further
CEQA evaluation is anticipated.
Figure 2-7g identifies four existing wells in Rialto that could be used to introduce groundwater
into the Rialto Channel. The refurbishment of the wells would require minor work to be
conducted by Valley District. Table 2-9 of the DEIR recognizes that the use of the wells would
require approval of the well owners. Regarding the assumptions on temperature, the DEIR makes
a reasonable assumption that the groundwater temperature would be substantially less than the
recorded summer-time temperatures in the Rialto Channel which exceed 86 degrees. The DEIR
does not target an ideal water temperature, but rather concludes that use of the wells to lower
river water temperatures would improve conditions compared to existing conditions.
Furthermore, the DEIR acknowledges on page 3.9-24 that local groundwater levels would be
affected by the use of the supplemental water wells. The DEIR assumes that although a cone of
depression around the wells would lower local groundwater levels, this effect would be similar to
the original designed use of the wells. Furthermore, the water would be discharged into the SAR
at a point where in-channel percolation is very high, re-introducing discharged water into the
groundwater system. The DEIR concludes that use of the existing wells would not significantly
impact groundwater levels or deplete the aquifer. Groundwater modeling reports conducted by
Valley District for each of the proposed recharge locations are included in Appendix I.
Please see Response to Comment Rialto-1 and RPU-5.
Comment SBMWD-15
The comment states that Mitigation Measure HYDRO-2 is inadequate since it does not provide
specific treatment types or replacement water sources.
Response to SBMWD-15
A primary objective of the proposed project is to replenish groundwater with recycled water to
meet local demands. Mitigation Measure HYDRO-2 requires that Valley District implement a
groundwater monitoring program in conjunction with the replenishment. The monitoring program
would assist in managing the groundwater basin effectively to maintain beneficial uses and to
protect public health. It is not anticipated that the replenishment water would adversely affect
local drinking water wells. However, with the establishment of a groundwater monitoring
network, water quality can be measured and recorded to evaluate potential impacts and
1 Regulations for groundwater replenishment using recycled water, effective June 18, 2014,
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/drinking_water/certlic/drinkingwater/RecycledWater.shtml
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-72 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
implement corrective measures, if required. The identified corrective measures include
modification of treatment of the replenishment water, or modification of operations of the well
that may require providing replacement water until the water quality issue is corrected. The
Mitigation Measure cannot predetermine additional specific modifications since those would
depend on and correct the water quality impairment identified during monitoring.
Furthermore, as noted in Response to Comment SBMWD-13 and SBMWD-14, the project would
be subject to an NPDES permit that would protect beneficial uses of the groundwater basin. The
Basin Plan objective for Bunker Hill subbasin B has assimilative capacity, which the RWQCB
has indicated could be assigned to recycled water projects. The details of the project’s use of
assimilative capacity in Bunker Hill subbasin B would be determined with the RWQCB during
the permitting process. Based upon the permits issued by the RWQCB to other recycled water
projects, it is reasonable to conclude that the RWQCB will either require the project to meet
Basin Plan objectives or to demonstrate that the project satisfies “maximum benefit” analysis. In
either case, the RWQCB would find the permitted project to be consistent with the Basin Plan.
Please see Responses to Comments RPU-1, RPU-2, and RPU-5.
Comment SBMWD-16
The comment addresses the concern that no information or analysis is provided regarding the
potential for the supplemental wells to adversely affect groundwater levels or surface water
quality or impact potentially higher flow velocity segments of the river used for spawning and
juvenile Santa Ana suckers. The comment suggests the DEIR include summer groundwater
temperature data for the Rialto wells.
Response to SBMWD-16
DEIR Figure 2-7g identifies four existing wells in Rialto that could be used to introduce
groundwater into the Rialto Channel. The refurbishment of the wells would require minor work to
be conducted by Valley District. Table 2-9 of the DEIR recognizes that the use of the wells would
require approval of the well owners. Regarding the assumptions on temperature, the DEIR makes
a reasonable assumption that the groundwater temperature would be substantially less than the
recorded summer-time temperatures in the Rialto Channel which exceed 86 degrees Fahrenheit.
The DEIR does not target an ideal water temperature, but rather concludes that use of the wells to
lower river water temperatures would improve conditions compared to existing conditions. The
DEIR acknowledges on page 3.9-24 that local groundwater levels would be affected by the use of
the supplemental water wells. The DEIR assumes that although a cone of depression around the
wells would lower local groundwater levels; this effect would be similar to the original designed
use of the wells. Furthermore, the water would be discharged into the SAR at a point where in-
channel percolation is very high, re-introducing discharged water into the groundwater system.
The DEIR concludes that use of the existing wells would not significantly impact groundwater
levels or deplete the aquifer.
Please see Response to Comment Rialto-1.
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-73 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
Comment SBMWD-17
The comment states that the Clean Water Factory, including the capacity of the Redlands Basin to
accommodate the Clean Water Factory, is not adequately assessed in the cumulative analysis.
Response to SBMWD-17
The Clean Water Factory is included as Cumulative Project # 6 in Table 4-1 of the DEIR. Since
the Clean Water Factory would contribute to reduced discharges, the Reduced Discharge Study
prepared for the proposed project includes an analysis of cumulative reductions up to 24 MGD.
The analysis is summarized in Chapter 4 as well as on page 3.4-63. Furthermore, the use of the
Redlands Basins by the City of Redlands was considered a cumulative project. The cumulative
use of these basins by the Clean Water Factory was not analyzed since the Redlands Basins were
not part of the Clean Water Factory project description in the Notice of Preparation for the Clean
Water Factory. Conversely, the cumulative use of the East Twin Creek Spreading Grounds was
considered since the Clean Water Factory project description identifies these basins as potential
recharge locations. The DEIR concludes that sufficient capacity is available for both projects.
Comment SBMWD-18
The comment states that the Expanded Trunk Sewer Alternative would meet most of the project
objectives when coupled with the Clean Water Factory.
Response to SBMWD-18
The Expanded Trunk Sewer Alternative would not meet the water supply objectives of the
proposed project since recycled water would not be produced for replenishing the Bunker Hill
Basin. Although SBMWD has the intention of implementing the Clean Water Factory, this
outcome and its timing cannot be guaranteed. The proposed project would assist SBMWD in its
recycled water goals and eliminate the need for an expanded trunk sewer. The comment provides
no basis for its assertion that the combined proposed Clean Water Factory and Expanded Trunk
Sewer Alternative would lower costs.
Comment SBMWD-19
The comment disagrees that under the No Project Alternative future wastewater needs would not
be met.
Response to SBMWD-19
Under the No Project Alternative, the conveyance system would not accommodate planned future
wastewater flows in the EVWD service area as summarized in the 2013 Wastewater Collection
System Master Plan. Without conveyance capacity, the treatment could not be accommodated.
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-74 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
Comment SBMWD-20
The comment states that the EVWD Master Plan recommends multiple small treatment plants
that were not considered as a project alternative.
Response to SBMWD-20
An Update of Recycled Water Feasibility Study prepared in 2015 concluded that the small
projects alternative would not meet the needs of EVWD and directed focus towards a larger
project as a solution.
Comment SBMWD-21
The comment states that the DEIR’s conclusions about the feasibility and environmental benefits
of the 3 MGD Alternative are not supported by substantial evidence.
Response to SBMWD-21
The DEIR explains the rationale for selecting the Environmentally Superior Alternative on page
6-24. The DEIR concludes that since the 3 MGD would result in less mitigation under Mitigation
Measure BIO-3, it would not be the environmentally superior alternative. The CEQA Guidelines
Section 15126.6(d) explains that an EIR’s evaluation of alternatives should be sufficient “to allow
meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison with the proposed project.” Chapter 6 of the
DEIR outlines several alternatives that would lessen certain impacts of the project. The DEIR
concludes based on reasonable evaluation that the proposed project would be environmentally
superior based on the commitments made in Mitigation Measure BIO-3 which would improve
aquatic habitat compared to existing conditions and enhance regional water supplies.
Comment SBMWD-22
The comment states that under the 1969 Agreement, SBMWD is required to discharge 16,000
AFY for delivery to Prado Dam. The comment further states that the intention of the DEIR at
Riverside Narrows is unclear: is the flow obligation 15,250 AFY (DEIR 3.9-5) or 12,420 AFY
(DEIR 3.9-28)? The comment also asks whether the SNRC raises a potential compensable takings
issue.
Response to SMBWD-22
The DEIR concludes that even with the reduction of 6 MGD from the RIX discharge, Valley
District’s water delivery obligation under the 1969 Judgment would be maintained through the
remaining RIX discharges. The DEIR further concludes that the water delivery obligation is
Valley District’s as the regional water agency, though, as discussed below, the City of San
Bernardino has agreed to discharge sufficient water to meet Valley District’s obligation under the
Orange County Judgment. The SBMWD has neither a contractual nor adjudicated ownership
interest in the effluent generated within the proposed SNRC service area. Under the current
agreement between SBMWD and EVWD, there is no obligation that EVWD deliver flows to
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-75 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
SBMWD, as there is no minimum flow requirement and the delivery of flows is permissive
(“may”) and not mandatory. Accordingly, there is no concern or issue of compensable taking.
At present, under the terms of the Orange County Judgment, Valley District is entitled to reduce
actual flows at Riverside Narrows to 12,420 afy of base flow due to the credits that Valley
District has accrued since 1969. Valley District is prepared to enter into a memorandum of
understanding with the City of San Bernardino that would: (i) allow for flow reductions from RIX
or other sources so as only to provide 12,420 afy at Riverside Narrows rather than discharging the
full 16,000 afy as required by the agreement between the City of San Bernardino and Valley
District; (ii) allow the City of San Bernardino to use up to 3,580 afy that would have been
discharged for the purpose of replenishing the San Bernardino Basin Area, replacing the 3,580
afy with credits previously accrued by Valley District under the terms of the Orange County
Judgment; and (iii) prevent the City of San Bernardino from selling, leasing, or otherwise
conveying or transferring the 3,580 afy, directly or indirectly, outside the boundaries of Valley
District.
The differing numbers identified in the comment in the DEIR regarding Valley District’s delivery
obligation to Prado Dam reflect the difference between Adjusted Base Flow and minimum flow
commitments. These are described in detail in the referenced Watermaster Report.
Paragraph 5(b) of the Judgment states that "SBVMWD shall be responsible for an
average annual Adjusted Base Flow of 15,250 acre-feet at Riverside Narrows. SBVMWD
each year shall be responsible for not less than 13,420 acre-feet of Base Flow plus one-
third of any cumulative debit, provided, however, that for any year commencing on or
after October 1, 1986, when there is no cumulative debit, or for any year prior to 1986
whenever the cumulative credit exceeds 10,000 acre-feet, said minimum shall be
12,420 acre-feet.” (2013-14 Watermaster Report, page 27)
Comment SBMWD-23
The comment states that SBMWD owns and relies upon the effluent it discharges to the Santa
Ana River and expresses concern that that the 6 MGD reduction of flow could have an adverse
financial impact on SBMWD’s WRP and affect SBMWD’s proposed Clean Water Factory
Project.
Response to SBMWD-23
It is important to distinguish between the effluent that SBMWD discharges to the Santa Ana
River and the wastewater produced in the EVWD service area. The project would only treat and
use the latter, which SBMWD does not own. EVWD has conveyed its wastewater for treatment to
the SBWRP under a permissive agreement with the City that has, since 1986, granted this option
to EVWD at EVWD’s expense. The SNRC project does not propose to appropriate or use water
that has been discharged to the Santa Ana River by the SBMWD.
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-76 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
The DEIR does not evaluate the impacts of reduced fees to the City resulting from the
construction of the SNRC. As noted in CEQA Guidelines Section 15131, CEQA does not require
that economic effects be considered unless they would result in an environmental impact. The
DEIR assumes that the City of San Bernardino and SBMWD would continue to provide
wastewater treatment services to its service area.
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-77 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter – San Bernardino International Airport
Authority (SBIAA)
Comment SBIAA-1
The comment suggests that the Valley District carefully consider the potential impacts of the
SNRC development. The comment states that the concerns set forth in FAA Advisory Circulars
150/5200-33B, 150/5200-34, as well as Section 503 of the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment
and Reform Act for the 21st Century (Public Law 106-181), and State guidelines including the
provisions set forth in the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook should be specifically
addressed.
Response to SBIAA-1
FAA Advisory Circulars 150/5200-33B, 150/5200-34, as well as Section 503 of the Wendell H.
Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (Public Law 106-181) refers to
construction interfering with air commerce and public airports. The project does not propose
construction that may interfere with air commerce or a public airport. Further, the DEIR
concludes on page 3.8-16 the project is consistent with airport land use plans.
Comment SBIAA-2
The comment suggests that Valley District should provide clarification on the guidelines that will
be followed with the design of the exterior lighting. The comment states that the lighting
components should be reviewed and approved by SBIAA.
Response to SBIAA-2
Exterior night lighting would be compliant with City of Highland requirements to shield glare
from emanating from the site. (DEIR p. 3.1-13.) These requirements would apply to airspace
glare as well, and so the proposed facility would not create a significant adverse impact to
aircraft.
Comment SBIAA-3
The comment states that the DEIR should acknowledge over flights (including single event noise
spikes) as background noise conditions for the site.
Response to SBIAA-3
The DEIR addresses noise and analyzes the constructional and operational impact of the proposed
project. The DEIR acknowledges background levels of noise from airplane overflights and the
proximity of airports to the SNRC site on pages 3.11-6 and 3.11-21. Impacts on noise resulting
from the proposed project are expected to be less than significant with mitigation as stated on
page 3.11-1. Thus, the operational impact of background noise is considered and would be
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-78 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
mitigated by the implementation of Mitigation Measures NOISE-2 and NOISE-3. To the extent
that the comment is focused on the background noise generated by the existing operations at the
airport, CEQA requires that the impacts of the project be mitigated, not environmental conditions
that already exist. The DEIR sufficiently considered and mitigates for the project’s impacts on
sensitive noise receptors and the cumulative impacts of the project and the existing conditions at
the airport. No further response or mitigation is required.
Comment SBIAA-4
The comment states that Valley District should provide information on the plans to mitigate
wildlife attractants and standing water conditions at the proposed SNRC in conformance with the
requirements set forth in FAA Advisory Circulars 150/5200-33B, 150/5200-34, and Public Law
106-81.
Response to SBIAA-4
The project proposes open-water detention ponds at the Administrative Center as one of the ways
in which the project would replenish the groundwater basin. Those ponds serve two distinct
purposes, first to collect and percolate onsite stormwater runoff, and second to percolate treated
wastewater. The ponds will be designed to meet the 48-hour stormwater percolation goal
established by the FAA and so would be consistent with the comment. In particular, the project
will prevent the establishment of vegetation within the ponds that can serve as a wildlife
attractant. The project would also be designed in conjunction with state and federal airport
agencies so as to minimize the likelihood that wildlife that may use these ponds would create
hazards at the airport.
Comment SBIAA-5
The comment states that special attention to ensure protection of the San Bernardino kangaroo rat
and the Santa Ana woolly star during construction is required. The comment states that further
information on the proposed pipelines residing on or adjacent to SBIAA owned property is
required.
Response to SBIAA-5
Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2 would ensure that impacts to SBKR and special status
plants are not significant.
Please see Responses to Comments CDFW-1, CBD-5, CBD-9, CBD-10, CBD-12, and USFWS-
12.
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-79 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter – Endangered Habitats League (EHL)
Comment EHL-1
The comment summarizes the Endangered Habitats League’s concern that the proposed project
could move forward in the absence of a Habitat Conservation Plan. EHL expresses their concern
for the importance of adequately analyzing individual and cumulative impacts in case this occurs.
Response to EHL-1
Valley District appreciates the comment’s support for the HCP, as the HCP is the type of
comprehensive approach that will create conditions that will contribute to the conservation and
recovery of the SAS over the long term. As noted in the comment, Mitigation Measure BIO-3
commits Valley District to participating in the Upper SAR HCP. The project would not
undermine the HCP process, but rather commits Valley District to participating. Further, in the
event the HCP is not completed in a timely manner, Mitigation Measure BIO-3 requires
implementation of an approved HMMP, which is designed to accomplish essentially the same
beneficial activities that will be undertaken pursuant to the HCP.
Please see Responses to Comments CDFW-1 and USFWS-1.
Comment EHL-2
The comment summarizes EHL’s concern that the water needed for Santa Ana sucker survival
was not adequately defined in terms of quantity, quality, and flow regime in the DEIR. EHL
states that the EIR must identify and disclose the water that should remain in-stream for the
Sucker and compare the survival parameters to the effects of implementing the proposed project
and cumulative diversions.
Response to EHL-2
The DEIR describes the existing condition of the SAR and RIX discharges on page 3.4-48. The
Reduced Discharge Study estimates the impact to depth and velocity that may occur if discharges
were reduced. Determining low flow requirements is complex since depth and velocity can vary
substantially depending on the channel geometry and flow obstructions. In addition, preferred
depth and velocity may be different for younger stage juveniles than for adults, recommending a
variety of conditions within a targeted river segment. For these reasons, the scientific community
has not established a widely accepted minimum flow volume although the USGS is in the process
of developing a Habitat Suitability Model for the Santa Ana sucker as part of the HCP planning
process. The model, which is expected to be completed and tested in the summer of 2016, will be
used by this project and others to determine the most effective conservation activities for the
species.
However, establishment of a fixed minimum flow volume is not necessary in order to accurately
assess the impacts of flow reduction or identify measures that will mitigate those impacts. In
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-80 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
general, the project proposes to reduce the constant flow of water by 20% in a system that is
already experiencing a multitude of stressors. Due to the currently degraded condition of the SAR
habitat and a proposed reduction of constant flow, the DEIR concluded that the impact to the
Santa Ana sucker in particular is properly deemed “significant and unavoidable.”
Even without reference to a definitive low flow “basement,” Valley District has been able to
identify potential impacts and develop appropriate mitigation measures. Measure BIO-3 outlines
conservation commitments to be included in an HMMP to specifically address the direct, indirect,
and cumulative impacts of the proposed project. Notably, the volume of flow in the Santa Ana
River is not the only factor affecting SAS survival. While the project will eventually reduce river
flows, the matrix on page 3.4-52 of the DEIR sets forth measures that address numerous other
factors that affect the long-term viability of the SAS. Improving those factors compared to
existing conditions will help ameliorate the impacts of the project resulting from reduced flows,
in part by creating a buffer against catastrophic events, including periodic dewatering events,
which could otherwise result in virtual extirpation of the species.
In other words, the HMMP is designed to not simply rectify the impacts of the project in a way
that will maintain the current status quo – which has not been beneficial to species like the SAS,
to say the least – but to address, in a long-term, comprehensive manner, a variety of existing
conditions that adversely affect the SAS and other species, like the Arroyo chub. Valley District
has concluded that the project’s reduction of river flows is properly deemed a significant and
unavoidable impact to the SAS, but in an effort to rectify that impact as CEQA requires, is
committed to addressing numerous other undesirable conditions that interfere with the long-term
survival of the species. Furthermore, through this project Valley District proposes to begin
implementing the first phase of a long-term, regional conservation strategy that will provide the
framework for recovery of the species.
Please see Response to Comment CDFW-3.
Comment EHL-3
The comment includes EHL’s request to include a deeper analysis and comparison of the
recharge sites in regards to the reduction of impacts, enhancement, and restoration opportunities.
Response to EHL-3
Table 6-1 provides a comparison of each of the three discharge location alternatives. The
discharge to City Creek would provide the greatest habitat benefit, which is why it is being
considered. However, as other factors including hydrology must also be taken into account, the
two other recharge locations are also being considered.
Please see Responses to Comments CDFW-1.
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-81 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
Comment EHL-4
The comment addresses EHL’s concern that the ultimate success of the Santa Ana sucker depends
on a regional approach among public agencies. EHL recommends that public agencies make their
lands available for enhancement and restoration opportunities with appropriate monetary
compensation, even if the mitigating agency is not the landowning agency.
Response to EHL-4
Valley District has confirmed its commitment to regional cooperation in the DEIR, and supports
the recommendation that lands needed for restoration and enhancement be made available for
those purposes even if the mitigating agency does not own the lands. This type of cooperative
approach will provide the greatest long-term benefits to the region and offers the best opportunity
for meaningful progress towards protection and recovery of species in the region that will be
affected by the SNRC and other similar projects. Valley District is thus committed to
participating in the Upper SAR HCP in coordination with regional stakeholders.
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-82 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter - Center for Biological Diversity / San
Bernardino Valley Audubon Society/ San Gorgonio Chapter of
Sierra Club (CBD)
Comment CBD-1
The comment agrees that the diversion of water from the Santa Ana River to the proposed SNRC
may provide a benefit to biological resources such as the federally threatened Santa Ana sucker.
However, the comment contends that the CEQA analysis is inadequate, that CBD is not able to
determine if the release of water will be helpful or harmful, and that Valley District cannot move
forward in approving the project based on the inadequate and incomplete DEIR.
Response to CBD-1
The CEQA analysis documents and evaluates all potential project-related impacts to special-
status and sensitive biological resources that occur or have the potential to occur on the project
site and the area proposed to be affected by the project. Response to comments CBD-2 through
CBD-23 will demonstrate the adequacy and completeness of the DEIR.
Comment CBD-2
The comment is concerned about the diversion from the Santa Ana River that will be caused by
the project as well as the impacts on biological resources from installing new pipes and outlet
structures to existing infiltration basins at Twin Creeks and Redlands, the effects to City Creek,
and the activation of wells and re-purposing an existing pipe to provide water into the Rialto
Ditch when the outflow in that ditch is too warm to sustain Santa Ana sucker fish.
Response to CBD-2
The DEIR assesses the potential for the project to result in significant impacts to biological
resources from all facets of the project, including the installation of new pipelines and outlet
structures and the effects to City Creek and the Rialto Channel. As stated in the first paragraph of
the Biological Resources Section (Section 3.4) of the DEIR, “The analysis identifies the proposed
project elements that may have measurable impacts on these resources”, which includes
permanent and temporary impacts.
Comment CBD-3
The comment states that the biological resources analysis has been deferred and the one “survey”
that was conducted is inadequate because sufficient biological surveys have not been completed
and only one “questionable” focused survey for a protected species occurred.
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-83 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
Response to CBD-3
Valley District shares the commenter’s concern regarding the potential impacts construction and
operation of the project may have on sensitive species. That concern, however, is precisely why
Valley District has chosen an approach to mitigation of those impacts that ensures the formulation
of specific mitigation measures is based on contemporaneous site surveys that will provide the
most up-to-date information possible, which in turn will increase the effectiveness of the final
mitigation strategy. Surveys done prior to project approval would not best reflect the impacts that
will occur at the time of construction of the project, because there will be lag time between
approval and construction as the regulatory process continues. Valley District has concluded that
conducting focused surveys closer to the time of construction is the approach that will best
protect the affected biological resources.
Deferring formulation of specific mitigation measures based on the results of future surveys is
permitted under CEQA when, as here, the agency commits to those future surveys, requires future
regulatory review based on the results of those surveys, and identifies methods that will be
considered for mitigating potential impacts.
A biological resources reconnaissance site survey was conducted of the proposed project’s impact
areas in the summer of 2015. The Biological Resources Report included in Appendix C of the
DEIR summarizes the results of the site survey, including an inventory of all potentially present
special status species. Tables 3.4-2 and 3.4-3 of the DEIR list these species and describe the
likelihood that the project could impact them. The Report provided extensive information
regarding the species and habitats then present at the sites. However, because the distribution of
species may change over time, through Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2 Valley District has
committed to conducting focused surveys in the project impact areas to better understand the
actual impacts to species and habitat in those areas, so that Valley District, in consultation with
CDFW and/or USFWS, can develop mitigation measures that will be directly responsive to those
precise impacts.
The special status species of concern with the highest potential to occur within the impact areas
include SAS, SBKR, least Bell’s vireo, southwest willow flycatcher, burrowing owl, and several
rare plants including woolly star, and spineflower. Figure 11-1 has been added to the DEIR to
identify occurrence data for these species within City Creek. The DEIR recognizes that
construction of the discharge structure and the discharge of water could impact species that
currently exist in the discharge locations. To ensure that these species are not impacted
significantly, the DEIR presents a mitigation strategy that provides for surveys of the impact
zones prior to construction, measures to avoid impacts, and compensation for unavoidable
impacts. Since conditions within City Creek change over time due to flood events, Mitigation
Measure BIO-1 rightfully commits Valley District to conducting surveys closer to the time of the
impact in order to implement the project’s impact minimization action requirements as outlined in
the Mitigation Measure.
To provide further assurances that any impacts will be properly mitigated, in addition to other
potential actions, Valley District is committed to a 1:1 mitigation ratio for temporary habitat
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-84 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
impacts resulting from construction, and a 3:1 ratio for permanent impacts to species associated
with affected alluvial fan habitat, including the San Bernardino kangaroo rat. The precise details
of how necessary mitigation measures will be carried out, however, will still be determined closer
to the time of the actual impacts, when surveys providing up-to-date information regarding the
affected species will be formulated. This is not an improper deferral of data collection, but
creation of a fixed obligation to conduct additional focused surveys to provide precise data on
sensitive plant and animal locations that will allow Valley District, in consultation with CDFW
and /or USFWS, to ensure that the mitigation strategy adopted reflects actual conditions.
Please see response to CDFW-1.
Comment CBD-4
The comment states the survey was a “reconnaissance-level survey” that did not span the entire
year or cover the entire project area given the statement in the DEIR that visual observations of
areas that were not accessible were made from the nearest accessible locations.
Response to CBD-4
As stated in the first bullet point of the Literature Review and Field Reconnaissance Section on
DEIR page 3.4-1, three reconnaissance-level surveys were conducted at the project site on April
28, July 17, and August 3, 2015. Due to the size of the project and standard industry practices, for
this project a reconnaissance-level survey is sufficient to obtain general habitat conditions and
determine species that occur or could occur on the project site.
Additionally, the reconnaissance-level surveys conducted on the project discharge sites spanned
from spring to late summer, covering 5 months of the 2015 year and a time period when most
plants are blooming and wildlife are breeding. This time period is the most suitable time to
observe a vast majority of species in Southern California due to average climate conditions. And
as stated in the methodology section of the Biological Resources Report (Section 3.2) “the
surveys were conducted on foot within accessible portions of the site”, which contains a vast
majority of the site and only excludes areas that were fenced off or gated where access was not
granted. This exclusion did not, however, result in inadequate or less than thorough assessment of
biological resources on the project site.
Comment CBD-5
The comment states that there is limited discussion of the San Bernardino Merriam’s kangaroo rat
known to be present in the area. The comment quotes a statement regarding surveys for the
species and negative findings, but states that citation to and details of the survey report are not
included in the discussion in the DEIR or as an attachment, and summarizes the accepted USFWS
survey protocol. The comment also states without further information the CBD cannot determine
if the surveys for San Bernardino Merriam’s kangaroo rat were conducted according to protocol
and are therefore, valid.
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-85 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
Response to CBD-5
Valley District appreciates and shares the concern for the SBKR – although there has been
significant focus on efforts to protect and conserve the SAS, it is also important that impacts to
the SKBR, including impacts that may result from efforts to benefit the SAS, be addressed.
The biological resources site survey conducted over the summer of 2015 (and summarized in
Appendix C of the DEIR) identified SBKR habitat and historic occurrence within the City Creek
impact areas (see Figure 11-1). The DEIR concludes on page 3.4-46 that SBKR may be displaced
within the small permanent impacted area in the creek and in the center of the streambed from
perennial flow.
To address potential significant impacts to the SBKR, the DEIR includes Mitigation Measure
BIO -2 which commits Valley District to direct consultation with CDFW and USFWS for
potential impacts to SBKR and other listed species impacted in City Creek. This consultation
would be conducted directly and not through the Upper SAR HCP. Valley District is committed
to conduct future site-specific surveys and appropriate consultation with CDFW and/or USFWS,
the results of which will be used to determine proper mitigation for impacted SBKR. Valley
District is also committed to a 1:1 mitigation ratio for temporary habitat impacts resulting from
construction, and a 3:1 ratio for permanent impacts to species associated with affected alluvial fan
habitat, including the SBKR. It is Valley District’s goal to provide enhancement of SBKR habitat
near the area if appropriate to achieve maximum ecological value to the species, in coordination
with the Wildlife Agencies. However, if onsite enhancement is not possible, Valley District will
seek to obtain and manage high-quality habitat or an area with the potential to become high
quality through additional management adjacent to the impact area and within designated critical
habitat. Additionally, Valley District will add to Mitigation Measure BIO-2 a subsection requiring
pre-construction trapping and relocation of the San Bernardino kangaroo rat, in accordance with
accepted protocol, if determined necessary by the USFWS during the Section 7 consultation
process.
Comment CBD-6
The comment states focused surveys for burrowing owl, 16 rare plants, and 35 rare animals were
not conducted and are deferred to prior to construction. The comment states that lacking this
information makes it impossible to conduct an adequate CEQA evaluation of impacts, and any
conclusions cannot be demonstrated to be supported by substantial facts.
Response to CBD-6
As noted in prior responses, a biological resources site survey was conducted of the proposed
project’s impact areas in the summer of 2015. The Biological Resources Report included in
Appendix C of the DEIR summarizes the results of the site survey. The biological survey
assessed all potential impact locations described in the Project Description, and the DEIR
appropriately inventories all potentially impacted species. The DEIR thus informs Valley District,
regulators, and the public that the project may have adverse effects on those species. That is
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-86 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
precisely why the DEIR sets forth mitigation measures that will ensure that those impacts will be
less than significant.
Valley District has concluded that to provide the most effective mitigation of the projects
impacts, it must develop specific mitigation measures through appropriate consultation with
CDFW and USFWS based on up to date information that reflects the status of the impact areas
near the time the impacts are expected to occur. The future surveys to which Valley District is
committed will enable Valley District and the wildlife agencies to select specific mitigation
measures that will render the project’s impacts insignificant. The surveys will be conducted in
accordance with CDFW-recommended protocols. The results of those future surveys will inform
the selection of mitigation measures that will avoid or rectify any impacts to the burrowing owl,
potentially including compensation for loss of occupied habitat, establishment of a suitable buffer
(typically 500 feet) around nests, monitoring during construction or delaying construction, and, if
necessary, passive relocation in accordance with CDFW’s 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl
Mitigation. (See Mitigation Measures BIO-2, which commits Valley District to conducting future
surveys and development of appropriate mitigation, and lists potential mitigation strategies.) The
ultimate goal of the selected mitigation measures will be to ensure that any impact to the
burrowing owl is rendered insignificant
Please also see response CDFW-5.
Comment CBD-7
The comment states the DEIR fails to mention USFWS-designated Critical Habitat for the
southwestern willow flycatcher which occurs in the project area; which is an oversight that makes
for a legally insufficient DEIR.
Response to CBD-7
Critical Habitat for this species does not occur in the areas impacted by construction of the project
components. However, Figure 3.4-2 has been modified to show the proximity of Critical Habitat
for southwestern willow flycatcher within the segment of the SAR downstream of the RIX
discharge. The revised Figure 3.4-2 is included in Chapter 12.
The DEIR acknowledges that southwestern willow flycatcher is found in riparian habitats in the
region (Table 3.4-3). The USFWS has designated primary constituent elements that are essential
for the flycatcher, including dense riparian habitat near a dynamic river system. The DEIR on
page 3.4-58 evaluates the potential for the reduction of 6 MGD to impact riparian habitat suitable
for use by the flycatcher. The DEIR concludes that the reduced flow would have minimal effects
to riparian habitat (please see response to comment OCWD-1) and therefore, impacts to
southwestern willow flycatcher would not occur. In response to this comment, the following text
has been added to page 3.4-54 of the DEIR to further acknowledge the southwester willow
flycatcher Critical Habitat in the project area and to clarify that the project would not result in a
reduction in southwestern willow flycatcher Critical Habitat.
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-87 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
Operational Impacts
USFWS-designated Critical Habitat for southwestern willow flycatcher is located within
the SAR (refer to Figure 3.4-2). The designation published in the Federal Register on
January 3, 2013, lists Primary Constituent Elements (PCE) for the southwestern willow
flycatcher as follows:
1. Riparian vegetation along a dynamic river or lakeside that is comprised of trees
and shrubs with some combination of:
a. Dense trees and shrubs that can range in height from 2 to 30 meters
b. Areas of dense riparian understory foliage at least from the ground level up
to approximately 13 feet.
c. Sites for nesting that contain a dense tree and/or shrub canopy
d. Dense patches of riparian forests that are interspersed with small openings of
open water or marsh
2. Insect Prey Populations
The operational requirements of the project will divert 6 MGD of recycled water that
would have been discharged into the Santa Ana River from the RIX facility, and
discharge that water into City Creek northeast of the project area, Redlands Basins,
and/or the East Twin Creek Spreading Grounds. The reduction in flow of 6 MGD would
not result in a substantial decrease in riparian cover that would restrict the primary
constituent elements identified by USFWS for southwestern willow flycatcher including
dense understory and insect populations. Sufficient volumes of water would remain in the
river channel to support the riparian habitat similar to existing conditions. Furthermore,
implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-3 would provide for management of the
riparian habitat including the removal of invasive weeds including arundo donax which
would increase the acreage of native riparian vegetation compared with existing
conditions, as native willows emerge in areas where arundo donax has been removed.
Additionally, the discharge of water into City Creek or other basins by the proposed
project will support the growth of riparian habitat at those locations. Therefore, there will
be no adverse modification of Critical Habitat as a result of the operational requirements
of the project.
Comment CBD-8
The comment states the DEIR fails to quantify the decrease in southwestern willow flycatcher
habitat due to the decrease in 6 MGD into the Santa Ana River, and without a quantified amount
of impact proposed mitigation measures to offset impacts cannot develop clear goals or truly
offset the impact.
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-88 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
Response to CBD-8
The DEIR recognizes on page 3.4-26 that southwestern willow flycatcher may occur within the
willow forests supported by surface water flows in the SAR. The DEIR concludes on page 3.4-45
that the reduction of 6 MGD flow would not significantly reduce riparian vegetation along the
SAR corridor. The Reduced Discharge Study estimates the reduction in wetted area of the
channel to be less than 6 percent. This small reduction in the width of the channel would not
result in substantial loss of riparian habitat. As a result, any special status species that utilize
riparian habitat including the southwestern willow flycatcher would not be significantly impacted
by the project. Additionally, increased native vegetation in City Creek resulting from a perennial
water supply and potentially in Rialto Channel due to the augmentation of summer water supply
will have the virtue of distributing the flycatcher and vireo spatially throughout the Santa Ana
River Basin. Distributing the population spatially could indirectly benefit the species due to less
competition for food, cover and nesting locations resulting in a net benefit to the Santa Ana River
population of vireo and/or flycatcher. Additionally, the expanded distribution could potentially
reduce the risk of catastrophic loss due to an accident (e.g. fire, contamination, disease) or other
disaster. Please see response to comment OCWD-1.
Please see response to comments CBD-7 and OCWD-1.
Comment CBD-9
The comment states the identification of impacts to San Bernardino Merriam’s kangaroo rat is
vague or unidentified, and as an example identifies that the City Creek outlet structure alternative
locations are within designated Critical habitat and while permanent impacts are identified,
temporary impacts are not identified and could be extensive and profound.
Response to CBD-9
The DEIR addresses potential impacts to the SBKR. The biological resources site survey
conducted in the summer of 2015 identified SBKR habitat and historic sightings within the City
Creek impact areas. The DEIR concludes on page 3.4-46 that SBKR may be displaced within the
small permanent impacted area in the creek and in the center of the streambed from perennial
flow. Therefore, the DEIR includes Mitigation Measure BIO-2 which commits Valley District to
direct consultation with CDFW and USFWS for potential impacts to SBKR and other listed
species impacted in City Creek. This consultation would be conducted directly and not through
the Upper SAR HCP.
The DEIR also evaluates on page 3.4-47 the potential for discharges at City Creek to modify
habitat within the creek bed that is within the USFWS-designated Critical Habitat of the SBKR.
The DEIR concludes that the addition of perennial flows within the creek would contribute to a
native ecosystem creating a perennial stream in an existing ephemeral channel within an area of
overlapping Critical Habitat designations. The proposed project would not create a new creek
where one did not previously exist. Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2 provide for
compensation of impacted SBKR habitat (RAFSS) at a 3:1 ratio.
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-89 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
Please see responses to CBD-5 and CDFW-1.
Comment CBD-10
The comment states Mitigation Measure BIO-2 relies on surveys for the kangaroo rat will be
conducted in the future making it unclear how animals and Critical Habitat will be impacted, and
subsequent mitigation measures that rely on the Biological Assessments submitted during the
Section 7 and 2081 consultations with wildlife agencies. This approach fails to provide the public
and decision makers with adequate data and analysis of impacts, and does not allow for public
comment on proposed conservation measures and compensation.
Response to CBD-10
A biological resources site survey was conducted of the proposed project’s impact areas in the
summer of 2015. The Biological Resources Report included in Appendix C of the DEIR
summarizes the results of the site survey. The survey identified SBKR habitat and historic
sightings within the City Creek impact areas. The DEIR concludes on page 3.4-46 that SBKR
may be displaced within the small permanent impacted area in the creek and in the center of the
streambed from perennial flow.
To address potential impacts to the SBKR, the DEIR includes Mitigation Measure BIO-2 which
commits Valley District to direct consultation CDFW and USFWS for potential impacts to SBKR
and other listed species impacted in City Creek. This consultation would be conducted directly
and not through the Upper SAR HCP. Valley District has concluded that conducting focused
surveys closer to the time of construction and basing specific mitigation measures on the results
of those surveys and consultation with CDFW and/or USFWS is the approach that will best
protect the affected biological resources.
In addition, while the SNRC site is a particularly poor location for the SBKR and Valley District
does not expect SBKR to be found on the site, if warranted, Valley District will conduct pre-
construction trapping and relocation of the San Bernardino kangaroo rat, in accordance with
accepted protocol, at the SNRC facility site in addition to the existing measures set forth in
Mitigation Measure BIO-2.
Please see Responses to Comments CDFW-1, CBD-5, and CBD-9.
Comment CBD-11
The comment states the DEIR does not attempt to quantify the change in decreasing RAFSS and
increase in riparian habitat, and the related potential impact to rare and endangered species. The
comment contends that a decrease in RAFSS habitat would require mitigation which the DEIR
fails to discuss and should fully address.
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-90 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
Response to CBD-11
Since the exact locations for the discharge structures will be refined during final design, precise
impact locations have not been identified. However, the approximate locations are well
understood and shown in Figures 2-7a through 2-7d.
Valley District is committed to conducting future site-specific surveys and appropriate
consultation with CDFW and/or USFWS, the results of which will be used to determine proper
mitigation for impacted species, and will also meet at least a 1:1 mitigation ratio for temporary
habitat impacts and a 3:1 ratio for permanent habitat impacts. Future permitting processes will
serve to better refine and further develop appropriate mitigation and, importantly, will give
CDFW and other agencies further opportunities to suggest how mitigation strategies can be best
adapted to respond to the actual conditions of the impacted areas. Valley District is eager to
develop mitigation measures that have the best chance of benefitting the affected species, and
looks forward to collaborating with CDFW and USFWS to develop both an effective plan for
mitigating the project’s impacts, and a regional, long term strategy for improving the system in
City Creek for both RAFSS and riparian dependent species.
Please see Response to Comment CDFW-1.
Comment CBD-12
The comment states that any segments of the 36-inch Santa Ana River Pipeline that need to be
replaced will likely fall within Critical Habitat for the San Bernardino Merriam’s kangaroo rat,
and the DEIR falls short of identifying and quantifying potential impacts to Critical Habitat, and
subsequent mitigation.
Response to CBD-12
Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2 cover impacts to any construction zone that may support
special status plants or animals including on property traversed by the SAR Pipeline.
Please see Responses to Comments CDFW-1, CBD-5, CBD-9, and CDB-10.
Comment CBD-13
The comment requests additional clarity on the operation of the wells and the minimum flows
going into the Santa Ana River.
Response to CBD-13
The supplemental water wells would be one component in a broader mitigation strategy. The
supplemental water could be used in the summer months to reduce temperature in the Rialto
Channel or to provide supplemental flows during RIX shut downs. The supplemental water is not
intended to be a full-time contribution to the river flow. Based on analysis conducted by the
USGS, it is possible to reduce the water temperature from the current 89 degrees Fahrenheit to
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-91 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
below 85 degrees Fahrenheit (the maximum tolerance of SAS) with approximately 2 cfs of
groundwater, for a total of about 365 acre feet per year if introduced from July to September. The
goal of this measure would be to implement the supplemental water to increase the temporal
availability of suitable habitat for SAS. The habitat condition triggers and success criteria will be
developed in coordination with the Wildlife Agencies and USGS for inclusion in the HMMP.
Comment CBD-14
The comment states the DEIR fails to examine the opportunity for re-introduction of Gambel’s
watercress back into the Santa Ana River watershed from which it has been extirpated, and
strongly suggests that re-introduction be part of the strategy for recovering this very rare species.
Response to CBD-14
Valley District appreciates the comment, but as listed in Table 3.4-2 (page 3.4-17) Gambel’s
watercress is not expected to occur on the project site due to the fact the species has been
extirpated from the area entirely, has not been documented in the area in over 100 years, and the
only known location currently exists in Santa Barbara County. Therefore, there is no potential for
the project to result in any significant impacts to this species and, as instructed by CEQA, no
mitigation is proposed.
Comment CBD-15
The comment states it seems wrong for the arroyo chub to only have a medium potential to occur
on the project site because arroyo chub is sympatric with the Santa Ana sucker in the Santa Ana
River. Clarification is requested.
Response to CBD-15
The DEIR recognizes on page 3.4-11 and 3.4-12 that arroyo chub occur within the SAR
watershed. The comment correctly notes that the arroyo chub exists sympatric with Santa Ana
sucker in the SAR below the RIX discharge. To emphasize the potential for the arroyo chub to
occur in the SAR, Table 3.4-4 will be modified as follows:
TABLE 3.4-4
POTENTIALLY OCCURRING SENSITIVE WILDLIFE SPECIES
Common and
Scientific Name
Status1
(Federal/State/
CNDDB) Habitat
Potential to Occur in
Project Impact Area
Arroyo chub
Gila orcutti
FSC/SSC/S2 Los Angeles Basin south coastal
streams. Slow water stream
sections with mud or sand
bottoms.
HighMedium. Suitable habitat for
this species is present in the
Santa Ana River and throughout
much of City Creek within the
project area when water is
present.
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-92 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
Although the chub and SAS are sympatric, impacts to the species are not the same. The arroyo
chub occur in the SAR in higher abundance and throughout a greater geographic range than the
SAS. The arroyo chub is not affected to the same degree as the SAS by changes in habitat
variables such as substrate composition, food availability, water depth, and velocity. Furthermore,
the arroyo chub is a species of special concern, but is not listed under either the federal or state
Endangered Species Act. The DEIR concludes that aquatic habitat would benefit from
implementation of mitigation measures including the HCP, which includes the chub as a covered
species.
Comment CBD-16
The comment states the prescribed microhabitat enhancement efforts in mitigation measure SAS-
1 may not be suitable means of mitigation to increase scour and pool formation since previous use
of gabions have not worked and boulders/woody debris placed in ineffective locations would be
ineffective mitigation that is left up to interpretation by the vague language of the mitigation
measure. It is also unclear if Flood Control Districts would allow installation of boulders/woody
debris in the river due to potential flooding or downstream damage.
Response to CBD-16
Mitigation Measure BIO-3 commits Valley District to implementing micro-habitat improvements
where feasible and allowed by the San Bernardino County Flood Control District. Based on field
observations in the portion of the river proposed for this activity (within the project’s area of
impacts) Valley District believes that strategic placement of woody debris or boulders will
produce the desired scour and pool and riffle formation. This is primarily due to the firm layer of
rock substrate typically less than 12 inches below the sand surface that will prevent features from
sinking below the substrate surface. In contrast, the OCWD gabions were placed in areas of
greater than 6 feet of shifting sands. However, the OCWD project did show that even temporary,
localized scour is an attractant to sucker and will be utilized by the species as available. Valley
District believes multiple areas of microhabitat availability strategically placed in conjunction
with available spawning habitat, would be beneficial to the species. The project is committed to
maintaining a level of microhabitat availability, as negotiated in consultation with the Service, in
perpetuity to offset the potential impacts of permanent reduced flow. Valley District will design
the microhabitat features in coordination with the Flood Control District to ensure the project
does not impair the flood capacity of the channel or pose a threat while providing benefit to
regional goals and objectives for public trust resources. The improvements would be one
component in a broader mitigation strategy. The DEIR concludes that attempts to improve habitat
conditions in the river would be an improvement on existing conditions.
Please also see Reponses to Comments USFWS-3, USFWS-8, and USFWS-9.
Comment CBD-17
The comment states the non-native predator control in Mitigation Measure SAS-2 is limited to the
upstream reach of the affected river segment, which is not clearly defined, and does not include
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-93 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
predator control downstream. The comment suggests a comprehensive measure for treatments
both upstream and downstream should be included.
Response to CBD-17
Mitigation Measure BIO-3 provides for predator control as one component in a broader
mitigation strategy. The project is committing to management of exotic predators in perpetuity
within the area of the project’s impacts and will meet success criteria developed in consultation
with the Wildlife Agencies. Although Valley District supports predator control downstream of the
project area, at this time its focus is on project-related impacts and measures to reduce the
associated effects. Valley District fully expects the SAR HCP will implement a larger predator
control program in the river as part of the large-scale conservation strategy. The DEIR concludes
that implementation of predator control in the river segment below the RIX discharge would
result in a habitat improvement compared to existing conditions.
Comment CBD-18
The comment states that weed abatement prescribed in Mitigation Measure SAS-3 must be
systematically implemented from the top of the watershed to the bottom to effectively reduce
weeds, since exotic plants will continue to re-infest downstream reaches resulting in an ongoing
weed problem, and the measure needs to identify a goal for exotic reduction and triggers for
action if exotics reappear.
Response to CBD-18
Mitigation Measure BIO-3 provides for invasive plant removal as one component in a broader
mitigation strategy. The DEIR concludes that implementation of invasive plant removal in the
river segment below the RIX discharge would result in a habitat improvement compared to
existing conditions. The project is committing to management of exotic weeds in perpetuity
within the area of the projects impacts and will meet success criteria developed in consultation
with the Wildlife Agencies. Although Valley District supports upper watershed management of
exotic weed, at this time its focus is on project-related impacts and measures to reduce the
associated effects. Valley District fully expects the SAR HCP will implement a larger exotic
weed control program in the river as part of the large-scale conservation strategy. The mitigation
provides the opportunity for routine weed removals in the river segment that currently receives no
management.
Comment CBD-19
The comment supports keeping the water in the Rialto Channel cool enough for Santa Ana sucker
and other aquatic fauna as mentioned in Mitigation Measure SAS-5. However, water temperature
and quantity should both be triggers for augmentation in Rialto Channel. The comment also states
that revegetation of the channel above Agua Mansa would provide additional habitat and reduce
heating of the pumped groundwater.
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-94 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
Response to CBD-19
Mitigation Measure BIO-3 does not include modifications to the Rialto Channel for water
temperature and augmentation. However, the proposed activity is under consideration as part of
the long-term SAR HCP conservation strategy.
Please see Response to Comment USFWS-11.
Comment CBD-20
The comment states Mitigation Measure SAS-6 needs to clarify the goals and success criteria of
the translocation plan and the translocated fish should not be considered an experimental
population under the ESA.
Response to CBD-20
Mitigation Measure BIO-3 provides for participation in a SAS relocation program as one
component in a broader mitigation strategy. The DEIR concludes that participation in a relocation
program would result in benefits to the SAS compared to existing conditions. The relocation
effort would be managed in consultation with USFWS and would be complementary to efforts
underway by Valley District in support of the Upper SAR HCP. The HCP will articulate success
criteria envisioned for the translocation which is an ambitious, long-term project with multiple
challenges, but with the potential for becoming a key component of the species’ recovery plan.
The reintroduced population will not be considered experimental under Section 10(j) of the ESA.
Valley District fully expects the population to establish and contribute to the ultimate recovery of
the species.
Comment CBD-21
The comment is requesting the Biological Assessment, discussed in Mitigation Measure BIO-1
pertaining to Endangered Species Act permitting, be provided as an appendix to the DEIR to
provide more specific data on the existing resources with potential for impact and clear
avoidance, minimization, and mitigation to reduce or eliminate the impact.
Response to CBD-21
The Biological Assessment will be timely submitted to the USFWS in connection with its formal
consultation process, following the certification of the FEIR and approval of the proposed project.
Comment CBD-22
The comment is requesting clarification of the project description and impact analysis of the
proposed pipeline that traverses City Creek at 5th and Greenspot Road, continuing east to some
undisclosed terminus.
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-95 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
Response to CBD-22
The Figure 2-5 has been modified to show that the treated water conveyance alternative would
traverse City Creek in order to discharge to the creek from the eastern edge. The revised Figure 2-
5 is included in Chapter 12.
Comment CBD-23
The comment states the District needs to carefully consider the need to divert water from the
Rialto Channel through the three separate projects since the cumulative effect of these three
projects (SNRC, City of Rialto, and the Clean Water Factory Project) could cause a catastrophic
decline in water levels in the Santa Ana River to support a variety of species. The comment urges
Valley District and the participating Cities to safeguard against the extirpation of the Santa Ana
sucker, as well as wildlife agencies implementing measures to protect the species.
Response to CBD-23
The project would not divert water from the Rialto Channel. Rather the project would reduce the
discharge from the RIX facility to the SAR, downstream of the Rialto Channel. The DEIR
recognizes the cumulative impact of reduced discharges in the SAR. The DEIR concludes that
cumulative impacts to SAS would be significant and unavoidable. The DEIR notes that Valley
District is currently preparing the Upper SAR HCP as a means of addressing cumulative impacts
to SAS on a regional scale and ensuring the long-term persistence of the species in the Santa Ana
River watershed. Through a regional multi-stakeholder approach, the SAR HCP will develop and
implement a multi-faceted, large-scale conservation strategy, with appropriate financial
assurances to guarantee management in perpetuity that will provide resiliency and redundancy to
the sucker population and ultimately aide in recovery of the species. The proposed SNRC project
would be a covered activity in the HCP.
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-96 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter – Local Agency Formation Commission for
San Bernardino County (LAFCO)
Comment LAFCO-1
The comment states that there is no information addressing the greater control over costs.
Response to LAFCO-1
The DEIR does not evaluate the cost of the project since cost is not an environmental impact of
this recycled water supply project. However, project costs are included in the Update of the
Recycled Water Feasibility Study 2015. As the responsible decision makers, the Valley District
Board of Directors will consider project costs when considering approval of the project, which
will occur as a separate action from the certification of the EIR.
Comment LAFCO-2
The comment states that on page 1-2 the reference to East Highland and Highland should be one
and the same.
Response to LAFCO-2
The comment correctly identifies an error. The following modifications have been made on page
1-2:
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District
Valley District was formed in 1954 as a regional water supply agency with a service area
that covers about 353 square miles in southwestern San Bernardino County and a
population of about 660,000. Its enabling act includes a broad range of powers to provide
water, groundwater replenishment, storm water and wastewater treatment and disposal,
recreation, and fire protection services. Valley District is a water wholesaler, delivering
imported and local water supplies to local water retailers. Valley District contracts with
the State Water Project (SWP) to provide imported water to the region and also manages
groundwater storage within its boundaries, which include the cities and communities of
San Bernardino, Colton, Loma Linda, Redlands, Rialto, Bloomington, Highland, East
Highland, Mentone, Grand Terrace, and Yucaipa.
Comment LAFCO-3
The comment states that on Page 1-2 the description of the District’s service area should clearly
identify that it primarily serves the City of Highland
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-97 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
Response to LAFCO-3
The comment identifies an appropriate clarification to page 1-2. In response to the comment, the
text of the Introduction has been modified as follows:
East Valley Water District
EVWD was formed in 1954 to provide domestic water service to the unincorporated and
agricultural-based communities of Highland and East Highlands, which were
incorporated in 1987 as the City of Highland. Today, EVWD primarily serves the City of
Highland. As the population of the area has increased, these agricultural demands have
been replaced by municipal demands. EVWD has built a water system to meet the
growing municipal demands and currently serves a population of approximately 101,000.
EVWD delivers 18 million gallons per day (MGD) of potable water from three sources:
Bunker Hill Groundwater Basin provides 90 percent, Santa Ana River (SAR) water
provides 9 percent, and SWP water provides 1 percent.
Groundwater is pumped from the Bunker Hill Groundwater Basin through a series of 18
EVWD-owned wells. Surface water supplies are treated at the 8 MGD Philip A. Disch
Surface Water Treatment Plant (Plant 134), which is owned and operated by EVWD. In
addition, EVWD also operates and maintains the sanitary sewer collection system within
its service area. Currently, the collection system conveys approximately 6 MGD of
untreated wastewater to the City of San Bernardino via the East Trunk Sewer, where it is
treated at the San Bernardino Water Reclamation Plant and RIX facility.
Comment LAFCO-4
The comment states that on Page 1-4 the issue of the location of the East Valley Water District
(EVWD) wells relative to the recharge sites is not addressed. The comment requests additional
information regarding the benefits to be received by EVWD from the projects.
Response to LAFCO-4
The proposed project does not include any new extraction wells. The project would recharge
recycled water to augment the regional water supply and assist with managing the groundwater
basin. Valley District proposes the project for the water benefits it will provide to the region,
including EVWD.
EVWD will receive the benefit of additional water supply reliability, which is difficult to quantify
given the quantity of water already in storage in the groundwater basin. However, this is clearly a
benefit because operating a groundwater basin in a sustainable fashion is the chief goal of
California’s new groundwater legislation. Moreover, because the SNRC facility will be able to
treat wastewater with better technology than the current treatment processes, EVWD ratepayers
will directly benefit from reduced costs once the facility comes on line (Appendix J includes the
Update of the Recycled WaterFeasibility Study, 2015). Finally, there is a regional benefit from
the manner in which Valley District has structured the project and the mitigation to balance water
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-98 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
supply reliability with the needs of threatened and endangered species. As noted by the USFWS,
the proposed mitigation strategy that will be implemented if the project is approved charts a
course towards the recovery of the Santa Ana sucker, and will provide a valuable model that can
be emulated by other water projects in the San Bernardino Valley. (Please see Response to
Comment USFWS-1.) Implementation of the project is thus expected to help streamline the
formation of mitigation measures for and approval of other regional water projects that may be
proposed in the future.
Comment LAFCO-5
The comment states that Figure 1-2 on Page 1-5 does not provide a legend for the lines on the
map.
Response to LAFCO-5
In response to the comment, a legend has been added to Figure 1-2. The figure is reproduced in
Chapter 12: Clarifications and Modifications.
Comment LAFCO-6
The comment states that Figure 2-1 on Page 2-2 does not show the location of Rialto well pumps.
Response to LAFCO-6
The existing groundwater wells that are proposed to be refurbished are shown on Figure 2-7g.
Comment LAFCO-7
The comment states that on Page 2-13 there is no explanation of what will happen during a larger
storm. The comment also states that there is no explanation as to where the excess flow would
drain.
Response to LAFCO-7
The SNRC would be designed with MBR technology to accommodate peak flows that enter the
collection system during storm events. Furthermore, the Draft EIR notes on page 2-14 that the
Administration Center would include retention ponds to capture stormwater on site.
Comment LAFCO-8
The comment states that there is no information about who owns the four existing groundwater
wells and if they have current outlets to the Santa Ana River (SAR). The comment states that
there is no information on what groundwater basin they will draw from or the current status of the
basin.
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-99 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
Response to LAFCO-8
As shown in Table 2-9, approval would be required from the City of Rialto for the use of the
groundwater wells. The wells are located within the Riverside Arlington groundwater subbasin as
shown on Figure 3.9-2. The DEIR recognizes on page 3.9-24 that the use of supplemental water
from the wells in Rialto would lower groundwater levels locally. The DEIR notes that the SAR is
a losing stream in the initial 6,000 feet below the Rialto Channel and the water introduced into the
channel would percolate back into the ground through the river bed. Furthermore, the use of the
wells is consistent with their past uses. The DEIR concludes on page 3.9-24 that the use of the
existing wells would not significantly lower groundwater levels relative to baseline conditions.
Comment LAFCO-9
The comment states that there is no information related to the length of the new 24” SAR pipeline
to the existing Rapid Infiltration Extraction (RIX) discharge pipeline. The comment states that
there are no operational scenarios for SAR deliveries to RIX or pumping and delivering of
groundwater to SAR for mitigation. The comment states that estimates of future mitigation
scenarios should be provided.
Response to LAFCO-9
The SAR Pipeline is described on page 2-24 and Figure 2-7f. The SAR Pipeline would be
refurbished from Alabama Street to the SBWRP, a distance of approximately 5.27 miles. A
bypass pipeline of approximately 2,500 feet would be constructed to connect the SAR pipeline
with the SBWRP’s discharge connection to RIX. The DEIR addresses the construction and
operational impacts of this project component. Operational scenarios for the use of the SAR
Pipeline and supplemental water will depend on the need for water to be discharged into the SAR.
A minimum flow in the river has not been established (please see response to comment CDFW-
1). Therefore, Mitigation Measure BIO-3 provides a mechanism to introduce supplemental water
into the river during warm periods to reduce temperature. The DEIR concludes on page 3.9-24
that any contribution would be an improvement over the existing condition, and the wells would
be functioning as designed. The SAR Pipeline would be used until the HCP or HMMP is fully
implemented.
Comment LAFCO-10
The comment states that on Page 3.3-13 the “San” in the text “City of San Highland” should be
removed. The comment states that this error appears in other parts of the DEIR.
Response to LAFCO-10
The comment identifies a typographical error in the DEIR. The following modifications have
been made on page 3.3-13:
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-100 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
City of Highland General Plan
The City of San Highland General Plan Air Quality Element contains various policies to
address citywide air quality issues. The following are relevant to the proposed project:
Comment LAFCO-11
The comment states that on Page 3.3-14 “City of San Highland” should be replaced with “City of
Redlands.”
Response to LAFCO-11
The comment identifies a typographical error in the DEIR. The following modifications have
been made on page 3.3-14:
City of Redlands General Plan
The City of San Highland Redlands General Plan Air Quality Element contains various
policies to address citywide air quality issues. The following are relevant to the proposed
project:
Comment LAFCO-12
The comment states the installation of the facility may not be suitable for the location due to
“potential modes for failure of the facility.”
Response to LAFCO-12
Impacts from hazardous materials involved with the implementation of the proposed project are
analyzed in Chapter 3.8. The proposed project would require preparation of a Hazardous
Materials Business Plan and must comply with all notification requirements of storing chemicals
onsite as stated on pages 3.18-14 and 3.18-15. The facility would not store acutely hazardous
materials or have the potential to result in hazardous air emissions. Accordingly, the DEIR
concludes that impacts involving hazardous emissions or the handling of hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste would be less than significant. The SNRC would be
designed with MBR technology to accommodate peak flows that enter the collection system
during storm events. The DEIR complies with CEQA guidelines and the proposed project would
comply with all safety and building regulation to prevent facility failures.
Comment LAFCO-13
The comment states that there is no analysis of release of any of the chemicals and causes of
releases to adjacent land uses.
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-101 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
Response to LAFCO-13
The DEIR addresses and analyzes the hazards of the potential for chemical releases on page 3.8-
14. The DEIR concludes that the storage, handling, and transport of chemicals used for treatment
would comply with regulations and would therefore pose low risk to the local community.
Comment LAFCO-14
The comment states that there is no evaluation of consistency with a treatment plant and the
adjacent land uses.
Response to LAFCO-14
The DEIR evaluates compatibility of the proposed treatment plant with neighboring land uses in the
aesthetics section, air quality section, land use section, noise section, population and housing
section, public services and utilities section and traffic section. As noted on page 3.12-11 the
proposed project would benefit the local community through providing community open space and
a community meeting facility. Furthermore, the Administration Center of the proposed project is
compliant and consistent with the Business Park designation as explained on page 3.10-10.
Please see Response to Comment Highland-1.
Comment LAFCO-15
The comment states that the statement “water infrastructure” is flawed due to the fact the facility
is primarily a wastewater treatment facility.
Response to LAFCO-15
As discussed on page 3.10-10, the DEIR concludes that the Government Code sections 53091 and
53095 exempt the project from local building and zoning laws. Government Codes section 53091
states that the county or city zoning ordinances “shall not apply to the location or construction of
facilities for the production, generation, storage, treatment, or transmission of water”. The SNRC
treatment facility is proposed to produce, generate, store, and treat water. Further, the SNRC
administrative facility is a consistent, allowable public facilities use expressly authorized by the
City of Highland’s Municipal Code Chapter 16.24 and in accordance with the City of Highland’s
existing business park land use zoning and general plan designations.
Please see Response to Comment Highland-1.
Comment LAFCO-16
The comment suggests the environmental justice discussion is flawed on Page 3.12-11. The
comment states that an evaluation of future operational costs to the minority and low income
residents of the city of San Bernardino should be provided.
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-102 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
Response to LAFCO-16
Environmental justice concerns the disproportionate impacts of a proposed project on the health
or physical environment of minority and low income populations. The DEIR does not evaluate
the cost of the project since cost is not such an impact. Project costs may be independently
viewed in the Update of the Recycled Water Feasibility Study 2015. The EVWD ratepayers,
including the 8,350 connections located in the City of San Bernardino, can expect reduced future
costs as a result of the project. No other residents of the City of San Bernardino will bear any of
the project’s operational costs. As the responsible decision makers, the Valley District Board of
Directors will consider project costs when considering approval of the project, which will occur
as a separate action from the certification of the EIR.
Please see Response to Comment SBMWD-2.
Comment LAFCO-17
The comment states that a detailed discussion of the effects on costs to EVWD’s customer’s
needs to be included.
Response to LAFCO-17
The DEIR does not evaluate the cost of the project since cost is not an environmental impact.
Project costs are included and may be independently viewed in the Update of the Recycled Water
Feasibility Study 2015. As the responsible decision makers, the Valley District Board of
Directors will consider project costs when considering approval of the project, which will occur
as a separate action from the certification of the EIR. The Feasibility Study concluded that
implementation of the project would result in lower rate increases in the future compared with the
No Project condition (Feasibility Study, Table 11-6). The estimated capital and O & M costs were
developed based on a survey of similar facilities that utilize Membrane Bioreactor (MBR)
technology to achieve tertiary/Title 22 treated water quality standards. A data base of
approximately 25 recent treatment plants utilizing MBR technology was compiled, with the
capital cost for each facility adjusted to the local/current Engineering News Record Construction
Cost Index. In addition, the reuse of recycled water would present a substantial regional water
supply benefit to water customers of the region through groundwater recharge in the Bunker Hill
Groundwater Basin.
Comment LAFCO-18
The comment states that reference to East Highland and Highland should be one and the same.
Response to LAFCO-18
The comment correctly identifies error on page 3.13-4. The following modification has been
made in response to this comment:
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-103 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
Valley District covers about 353 square miles and serves a population of 660,000 in
southwestern San Bernardino County; it includes the cities and communities of San
Bernardino, Colton, Loma Linda, Redlands, Rialto, Bloomington, Highland, East
Highland, Mentone, Grand Terrace, and Yucaipa (Valley District, 2015).
Comment LAFCO-19
The comment states that the text “Local Area Formation commission…” should be corrected to
“Local Agency Formation Commission.”
Response to LAFCO-19
The comment correctly identifies error on page 3.13-5. The following modification has been
made in response to this comment:
The City of Redlands provides drinking water to the Redlands and Mentone areas; the
water utility service area generally coincides with the area designated by the Local
Agency Area Formation Commission (LAFCO) as the City and its sphere of influence.
Comment LAFCO-20
The comment states that the text identifies wastewater treatment as a “critical public demand” but
that this is not accurate since treatment is already provided, and the need is for additional water.
Response to LAFCO-20
The DEIR notes on page 3.13-13 that wastewater treatment is a “critical public service” that is
currently being provided at the SBWRP and that the proposed project would meet existing and
future demands. As correctly stated in the comment, the proposed project would provide water
supply benefits.
Comment LAFCO-21
The comment states that modifications should be made due to the fact that the wastewater
treatment project will result in significant impacts.
Response to LAFCO-21
The DEIR explains that the project would construct a new wastewater treatment plant and
evaluates the impacts of the proposed wastewater treatment facility throughout Chapter 3. As
stated in Impact 3.13-3, wastewater generated during construction would be minimal and the
environmental analysis of operational impacts for each environmental resource is sufficiently
performed throughout the DEIR. Thus the conclusion of less than significant is correct.
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-104 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
Comment LAFCO-22
The comment states that the analysis of cumulative hydrology impacts should include an
evaluation of all upstream agency plans for reductions in flows into the Prado Basin. The
comment suggests a survey of all water/wastewater management agencies located upstream of
Prado Dam to evaluate the cumulative impact of potential water withdrawals from the Santa Ana
River.
Response to LAFCO-22
Please see Responses to Comments OCWD-2 and CBD-23.
Comment LAFCO-23
The comment states that there is no data to substantiate the conclusion that the Redlands Basins
have sufficient capacity to accommodate both discharges.
Response to LAFCO-23
The City of Redlands commissioned a study of the recharge capacity of its recharge basins that
determined the recharge capacity of the basins to be approximately 6 feet per day. With a
recharge area of approximately 35 acres, the total recharge capacity of the Redlands basins is
estimated to be 210 acre-feet per day, which is approximately 69 MGD. This 69 MGD is well in
excess of the potential combined contributions of 10 MGD from the SNRC and the full capacity
of the City of Redlands wastewater treatment plant.
Comment LAFCO-24
The comment states that several of the alternatives were rejected due to proximity to residential
development; therefore this consideration should also apply to the project site.
Response to LAFCO-24
The DEIR describes several alternative locations for the treatment plant that were rejected from
further consideration based on several factors. Each of the alternative locations is described on
page 6-4. The proximity to residential neighborhoods was not a constraint that caused the
rejection of any of the alternatives. The elevation of the EVWD Headquarters alternative would
result in significantly increased energy usage and risk of spills, thereby rendering this alternative
infeasible.
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-105 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter – Mentone Area Community Association
(MACA)
Comment MACA-1
The comment states that there is no mention of the proposed SBVMWD wastewater treatment
plant project in the Harmony Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report. The comment states the
lack of consistency needs to be corrected.
Response to MACA-1
The proposed project would divert the existing wastewater flows in the EVWD service area to the
new SNRC. Future flows within the service area would be conveyed to the SNRC as well. The
DEIR addresses the environmental impacts of the proposed SNRC project. Valley District is not
the lead or a responsible agency for the Harmony Specific Plan or its Environmental Impact
Report and cannot direct or require the contents of those documents.
Comment MACA-2
The comment states that the outfall sewer that is necessary to connect the Harmony Specific Plan
to the proposed Sterling Natural Resource Center wastewater treatment plant has not been
identified.
Response to MACA-2
The proposed project does not include constructing new sewer collection facilities for any new
portions of the service area. Because the comment does not address the contents of the DEIR, no
further response is available or required.
Comment MACA-3
The comment states that MACA would be interested in having a service review conducted and
having sewer service made available in conjunction with the proposed Sterling Natural Resources
Center project.
Response to MACA-3
The proposed project does not include constructing new sewer collection facilities for any new
portions of the service area. Because the comment does not address the contents of the DEIR, no
further response is available or required.
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-106 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter – SoCal Environmental Justice Alliance
(SEJA)
Comment SEJA-1
The comment states that the DEIR is deeply flawed with respect to project description, analysis of
impacts, alternatives, and cumulative impacts and should be recirculated.
Response to SEJA-1
The comment is a summary of comments to follow. See responses to comments SEJA-2 through
SEJA-70.
Comment SEJA-2
The comment states that the DEIR does not explain how much water will be conveyed to each of
the discharge location alternatives.
Response to SEJA-2
The proposed project would divert the full wastewater flow from the EVWD service area,
currently a 6 MGD flow. As detailed on pages 2-5 and 2-6 of the DEIR, the project proposes to
convey the treated water to one or more of the three recharge locations, and water may also be
conveyed to the Santa Ana River Pipeline, as described and analyzed in detail throughout the
document. The FEIR includes results of the groundwater modeling of the three recharge locations
in Appendix I.
Comment SEJA-3
The comment states that it is impossible to tell why Valley District is the Lead Agency.
Response to SEJA-3
The DEIR describes why Valley District is the CEQA Lead Agency in Section 1.2.2. The DEIR
states that Valley District, acting as the regional water supply agency with the requisite regional
expertise and the authority to provide water supply, groundwater replenishment, storm water and
wastewater treatment and disposal services within its service area, is the agency that has initiated
the SNRC project for its regional recycled water supply benefits. Those benefits include recharge
of the Bunker Hill Groundwater Basin and reduced reliance on imported water through
development of a local drought-proof supply. The wastewater of EVWD will be treated at the
SNRC. EVWD is located entirely within Valley District’s service area, and its customers are also
ratepayers of Valley District.
Comment SEJA-4
The comment requests clarification for the purpose of the SAR Pipeline component of the project.
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-107 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
Response to SEJA-4
The SAR Pipeline component is described in Section 2.4.4 of the DEIR. The DEIR describes on
page 2-27 that with the SAR Pipeline discharge component, “treated water may be discharged to
the SAR at RIX for short periods to ensure adequate river flows if needed for environmental
benefits.” Essentially, this project component provides for back-up assurance that river flows can
be maintained at existing levels until biological mitigation measures have been successfully
approved and implemented sufficiently to mitigate significant impacts to aquatic resources within
the SAR below the RIX discharge. Maintenance of the aquatic resources in the SAR will require
regional cooperation and coordination, and this component increases operational flexibility of the
regional water resource.
Comment SEJA-5
The comment points out an error in Table 2-8: annual biosolids truck trips should be 600, with
annual total truck trips at 740. The comment also states that elsewhere in the DEIR a total of 5
truck trips per day is assumed.
Response to SEJA-5
As stated on page 2-33 of the DEIR, the proposed project would generate an average of fewer
than 2 biosolids haul trips per day, totaling approximately 600 trips per year. The total of 600
biosolids truck trips was used in the air emissions calculations as shown on page 5 of Appendix
B. The comment correctly identifies an error in Table 2-8. In response to this comment, Table 2-8
on page 2-33 of the DEIR has been corrected to show that total annual truck trips would be
approximately 720, with biosolids truck trips constituting 600 of those trips.
TABLE 2-8
OPERATIONAL TRUCK TRIPS
Purpose Number of Truck Trips per Year
Chemical Deliveries 14
Screenings and Grit Disposal 104
Biosolids Removal
Total
600
718 (say 720)
SOURCE: Valley District, 2015
In response to the comment the following change has been made to the last paragraph on page
3.15-7. This change reflects the accurate number of trips and reduces the number analyzed in the
section such that the change does not affect the impact conclusion:P
Approximately 5An average of fewer than 2 biosolids haul trips per day would be
generated at the facility.
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-108 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
Comment SEJA-6
The comment suggests that the DEIR does not evaluate the potential for an aesthetic impact of
scenic vistas toward the mountains since Figure 3.1-11 does not show the view toward the
mountains.
Response to SEJA-6
Photo 1 in Figure 3.1-1a shows the San Bernardino Mountains in the background and confirms
the conclusion that the mountains are sufficiently far from the SNRC facility such that the facility
will not obscure scenic vistas. The DEIR recognizes that the City of Highland Conservation and
Open Space Element specifies the goal of preserving views including the San Bernardino
Mountain ridgeline. Although the new facility would introduce structures that would block long-
range views from the immediate proximity, the buildings would be consistent with urban
development land uses and would not affect existing long-range views. The DEIR properly
concludes on page 3.1-11 that the proposed project would not alter views of this scenic resource.
Comment SEJA-7
The comment states that the haul trips should be considered in the localized air quality impact
assessment.
Response to SEJA-7
As noted on page 3.3-19 localized air impacts are focused on local receptors and therefore are
only concerned with emissions within close proximity of certain local receptors. This precludes
mobile trips that produce emissions further than 1,000 feet from the site. The DEIR complies with
SCAQMD guidelines for conducting localized impact analysis using its Localized Significance
Thresholds (LST) (page 3.3-30). The DEIR does assess mobile emissions for all vehicle trips
associated with construction and operation under Impact 3.3-2 (page 3.3-21) which evaluates
project emissions using SCAQMD approved regional emissions thresholds.
Comment SEJA-8
The comment notes that the air emissions calculations assumed 25 employees per day whereas
the DEIR states that only 5 employees would be necessary.
Response to SEJA-8
The DEIR air emissions calculations for operational worker commute trips assume a more-
conservative 25 workers per day. This provides for a more conservative analysis.
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-109 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
Comment SEJA-9
The comment states that the project is not consistent with the City of Highland General Plan and
is therefore not consistent with the Air Quality Management Plan that relies on the assumptions
of the local land use assumptions.
Response to SEJA-9
The DEIR examines specific policies contained in the City of Highland General Plan and
concludes on page 3.10-11 that the proposed project is substantially consistent with and is also, as
a water treatment facility, exempt from that General Plan. Furthermore, the DEIR describes the
applicable air quality standards on page 3.3-21 and bases its conclusions on those standards,
finding that the project is consistent with regional population, housing, and employment
forecasts. The proposed project would not induce unplanned growth as explained on page 5-4 of
the DEIR. Therefore, the project is consistent with the AQMP irrespective of the SNRC site
zoning or General Plan land use designation.
Please also see Response to Comment Highland-1.
Comment SEJA-10
The comment suggests that air emissions should be evaluated as stand-alone emissions and that
the project should not be considered one that will reduce emissions at RIX.
Response to SEJA-10
The emissions calculations provided in Tables 3.3-6 through 3.3-12 evaluate the project’s
emissions as stand alone emissions without providing any emission reduction credits from the
reduced treatment that will be provided by SBWRP and RIX. The statement in the DEIR referred
to in the comment explains that the analysis conducted in the DEIR is a conservative approach.
Comment SEJA-11
The comment states that prolonging or phasing construction activities would avoid significant
daily emissions impacts.
Response to SEJA-11
The SCAQMD significance thresholds listed in Table 3.3-5 are daily emissions thresholds. The
daily project emissions estimates provided in Table 3.3-7 utilize a worse-case scenario whereby
construction activities for multiple components would occur simultaneously during a single day.
The analysis provides for a conservative assessment of potential impacts that may be significant.
As the comment points out, significant construction emissions could be avoided in every situation
through reduced productivity and a prolonged construction schedule. However, the EIR
concludes that construction emissions would be significant and unavoidable since delaying
construction activities is impractical and simply prolongs and extends the daily impact over time
of not only air emissions, but also other construction related impacts such as noise and traffic.
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-110 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
Comment SEJA-12
The comment takes issue with the SCAQMD methodology for assessing cumulative impacts and
recommends that additional mitigation measures be applied to minimize cumulative impacts.
Response to SEJA-12
The DEIR identifies cumulative projects that would contribute cumulative emissions in Table 4-
1. The DEIR also notes on page 3.3-28 that SCAQMD has designated the South Coast Air Basin
as being in nonattainment for ozone, PM10 and PM2.5. Therefore, the DEIR recognizes that the
existing air quality is impacted by the region’s cumulative emissions and that future projects will
contribute to the already significantly impacted air quality. As a result, the DEIR concludes that
cumulative impacts to air quality are significant. The DEIR applies the SCAQMD cumulative
impact methodology to conclude that NOx emissions would be cumulatively significant, but
contributions of PM10 and PM2.5 to the cumulative condition would not be considerable based on
stated thresholds, and therefore not a significant impact of the project. Other criteria pollutants
would be less than significant since the regional air quality is in attainment for those pollutants.
This impact assessment methodology is recommended by SCAQMD.
Comment SEJA-13
The comment states that the SCAQMD LST methodology underestimates impacts to local
receptors.
Response to SEJA-13
The DEIR utilizes the SCAQMD LST methodology to estimate potential impacts to local
receptors because that methodology is widely accepted in this region as one that accurately
evaluates such impacts. The significance determination output of the methodology includes
assumptions to capture distance variation to receptors. Therefore, although the exposure may be
greater at shorter distances, the LST is not exceeded when the methodology is used appropriately.
The conclusion of the DEIR is that based on the SCAQMD-recommended methodology, impacts
to local receptors from temporary construction emissions would not be significant.
Comment SEJA-14
The comment states that the DEIR should have evaluated risks in addition to cancer risk posed by
diesel exhaust.
Response to SEJA-14
The DEIR evaluates potential localized impacts that could result from the emissions of toxic air
contaminants including diesel exhaust on page 3.3-32. The DEIR describes that health risk
assessments evaluate potential cancer risks over a 70-year period. The DEIR concludes that the
two-year construction period is not long enough to warrant concerns from diesel particulate
matter exposure from a specific source. Furthermore, the use of diesel powered engines at the
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-111 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
construction site would occur largely during initial phases of the project and would be
substantially reduced as the construction progressed. The DEIR concludes that even when using
conservative assumptions, the health risk from diesel emissions would be small.
Comment SEJA-15
The comment states that the TAC air emissions associated with the cogeneration equipment
should have been included in the air impact analysis.
Response to SEJA-15
Project operation emissions from the process equipment will depend on the equipment used. The
DEIR provides an estimate of operational emissions in Table 3.3-10 that includes cogeneration
emissions. The estimates are well below the SCAQMD operational significance thresholds.
Stationary emissions from process equipment including cogeneration is highly regulated and
controlled to protect public health in the immediate vicinity and within the region. As noted on
page 3.3-33 of the DEIR, stationary emission sources will require emissions permits through the
New Source Review process that imposes rigorous control and monitoring requirements to
minimize emissions. The DEIR properly concludes that the potential for TAC emissions to
impact public health would be low with the application of emissions controls required by the
SCAQMD.
Comment SEJA-16
The comment states that the odor control mitigation measure is inadequate and requests that
biosolids haul trucks are enclosed.
Response to SEJA-16
Mitigation Measure AIR-2 requires preparation and implementation of an Odor Impact
Minimization Plan that would include odor control system operations plan and performance
standards in addition to complaint response protocols. Controlling odors from the biosolids
handling process is within the scope of the Plan. The odor control performance standards will
include fenceline standards that will be met with operation of the odor control systems over each
of the treatment processes. The Plan serves as the management tool to enforce performance
standards to ensure that odors do not escape from the facility or during the hauling process.
The Plan will be based on standard industry practices. For instance, haul trucks are always
covered with blue tarp as suggested in the comment. Dewatered biosolids from a wastewater
treatment plant are typically loaded in a transportation truck through a conveyor system in an
enclosed scrubbed facility. Doors are closed when the truck trailer is being loaded. Loading
facility is equipped with scrubbers for odor control. Loaded biosolids truck trailers are properly
covered with tarp before leaving the facility. Many agencies in California transport the biosolids
for long distance transportation without causing any nuisance to the public. As an example,
Coachella Valley Water District and many others in Riverside County transport to Arizona.
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-112 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
Comment SEJA-17
The comment states that field surveys should have been conducted for the East Twin Creek
Spreading Grounds.
Response to SEJA-17
Since access to the basins was denied by the County Flood Control Agency, field surveys were
not conducted within the spreading grounds. However, aerial imagery and past survey data
provide substantial information for the types of habitats and habitat values that could be
encountered at the site at the time of construction. The DEIR lists the special status plants and
wildlife that may be encountered at the site. Furthermore, surveys today at the spreading grounds
would have limited value since conditions within the basins change depending on the frequency
of their use. Focused surveys to quantify habitat acreage within the basins would be subject to
revision at the time of the impact that may be two years or more in the future. The DEIR provides
a survey strategy that commits Valley District to quantification of the project effect at the time the
effect occurs, and mitigation of the effect through compensation ratios established through
consultation with CDFW and USFWS.
Please see also Responses to Comments CDFW-1, USFWS-1, CBD-3, and CBD-6.
Comment SEJA-18
The comment states that Valley District is responsible for mitigating all special status plants not
just listed species, that the HCP may not cover all special status species, and that surveys should
have been conducted to quantify impacts.
Response to SEJA-18
The types of plant and animal species that could be encountered during the time of the impact are
well understood and identified in the DEIR.
The DEIR recognizes that within the impacted areas within City Creek there is the potential for
sensitive plant and animal species to occur. For example, construction of the discharge facility
within either City Creek or East Twin Creek Spreading Grounds would result in approximately
2,000 square feet of temporary disturbance to RAFSS and approximately 1,000 square feet of
permanent disturbance. Once discharged into City Creek, the perennial flow would convert a
corridor of the existing mulefat and RAFSS habitat into riparian vegetation. This could impact
approximately 1.5 acres of RAFSS in the center of the creek channel. Accordingly, Mitigation
Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2 commit Valley District to replacing impacted sensitive habitat that
supports sensitive species in consultation with CDFW and USFWS. Furthermore, since
conditions within City Creek change over time due to flood events, Mitigation Measures BIO-1
and BIO-2 rightfully commit Valley District to conducting surveys closer to the time of the
impact in order to more accurately quantify the project’s effect and compensation requirements
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-113 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
In response to the comment, the mitigation has been modified as shown below. Mitigation for
sensitive plants will be conducted in consultation with the wildlife agencies either through the
Endangered Species Act or other permitting mechanisms such as a streambed alteration
agreement for non-listed species. In addition, in response to other comments received on the
DEIR, the Mitigation Measures have been refined to expressly require replacement of
permanently impacted RAFSS habitat at a ratio no less than 3:1 in consultation with CDFW and
USFWS. Valley District is committed to and looks forward to working with the wildlife agencies
to develop appropriate compensation for the replacement of RAFSS habitat in City Creek with
riparian vegetation:
BIO-1: Disturbance to Special-Status Plants. The following measures will reduce
potential project-related impacts to special-status plant species that may occur adjacent to
the project site within City Creek to a less than significant level. Potential project-related
impacts may result from the construction of the pipeline extension and discharge
structure within City Creek, Redlands Basins, and/or the East Twin Creek Spreading
Grounds.
e. Prior to the start of construction within City Creek, Redlands Basins, and/or the
East Twin Creek Spreading Grounds, a focused botanical survey will be
conducted to determine the presence/absence of any of the special-status species
with a moderate or high potential to occur. The focused botanical survey will be
conducted by a botanist or qualified biologist knowledgeable in the identification
of local special-status plant species, and according to accepted protocol outlined
by the CNPS and/or CDFW.
f. If a special status state or federally-listed plant species is discovered in a project
impact area, informal consultation with CDFW and/or USFWS will be required
prior to the impact occurring to develop an appropriate avoidance strategy.
Depending on the sensitivity of the species, relocation, site restoration, or other
habitat improvement actions may be an acceptable option to avoid significant
impacts, as determined through consultation with the resource agencies.
g. If impact avoidance of a state or federally-listed species is not feasible, Valley
District shall quantify the impacted acreage supporting state or federally-listed
plant species within the construction area and estimated perennial flow area and
prepare a Biological Assessment pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act and Section 2081 of the State Endangered Species Act. The Biological
Assessment shall quantify compensation requirements for affected plants species.
Valley District shall implement the conservation measures and compensation
requirements identified through consultation by USACE with both CDFW and
USFWS.
Please also see Responses to Comments CDFW-1, CBD-3, and CBD-6.
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-114 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
Comment SEJA-19
The comment states that surveys and mitigation for wildlife should include all special status
species not just listed species.
Response to SEJA-19
The DEIR identifies all sensitive-status wildlife species that have a potential to be impacted by
the project. Mitigation Measure BIO-2 presents a mitigation strategy for listed species. In
response to this comment the mitigation measure has been expanded to include pre-construction
site clearing surveys to remove special status wildlife species from the impact areas prior to
construction.
BIO-2: Disturbance to Special-Status Wildlife. The following measures will reduce
potential project-related impacts to special-status wildlife species that may occur within
disturbed and native habitats, to a less than significant level. Potential project-related
impacts may result from construction of the SNRC, construction of the discharge
structures within City Creek and other discharge locations, and perennial discharges to
City Creek or other discharge locations.
f. Prior to the start of construction within City Creek or other discharge locations,
Valley District shall conduct focused surveys within the project impact areas to
determine if any state or federally-listed wildlife species (southwestern willow
flycatcher, coastal California gnatcatcher, San Bernardino kangaroo rat, and least
Bell’s vireo) are located within project impact areas. Focused surveys will be
conducted by a qualified and/or permitted biologist, following approved survey
protocol. Survey results will be forwarded to CDFW and USFWS. If state or
federally-listed species are determined to occur on the project site with the
potential to be impacted by the project, consultation with CDFW and/or USFWS
will be required.
g. If impact avoidance is not feasible, Valley District shall quantify the impacted
acreage supporting state or federally-listed wildlife species within the
construction area and estimated perennial flow area and prepare a Biological
Assessment pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and Section
2081 of the State Endangered Species Act. The Biological Assessment shall
quantify compensation requirements for affected wildlife species. Valley District
shall implement the conservation measures and compensation requirements
identified through consultation by USACE with both CDFW and USFWS.
h. Prior to the start of construction of the SNRC building and the recycled water
pipeline along 6th Street, focused burrowing owl surveys shall be conducted to
determine the presence/absence of burrowing owl adjacent to the project area.
The focused burrowing owl survey must be conducted by a qualified biologist
and following the survey guidelines included in the CDFW Staff Report on
Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012). If burrowing owl is observed within
undeveloped habitat within or immediately adjacent to the project impact area,
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-115 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
avoidance/minimization measures would be required such as establishing a
suitable buffer around the nest (typically 500-feet) and monitoring during
construction, or delaying construction until after the nest is no longer active and
the burrowing owls have left. However, if burrowing owl avoidance is infeasible,
a qualified biologist shall implement a passive relocation program in accordance
with the Example Components for Burrowing Owl Artificial Burrow and
Exclusion Plans of the CDFW 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation
(CDFW, 2012).
i. Prior to the start of construction within City Creek, pre-construction site clearing
surveys will be conducted of the project impact area within natural habitats. Any
special status ground-dwelling wildlife will be removed from the immediate
impact area and released in the nearby area.
Please also see Responses to Comments CDFW-1, SEJA-18, CBD-3, and CBD-6.
Comment SEJA-20
The comment states that focused surveys of the burrowing owl and other species should have
been conducted and relocation areas identified.
Response to SEJA-20
The DEIR describes the results of initial surveys conducted to identify potential habitat for
burrowing owl as required in the burrowing owl survey guidelines. No burrowing owls were
observed during the initial surveys. However, in compliance with the survey protocol, Mitigation
Measure BIO-2 commits Valley District to conduct the focused surveys required at the time of
construction to evaluate precise construction zones once they are identified. If burrowing owls are
present and unavoidable, the mitigation measure commits Valley District to following the
established relocation protocol in consultation with CDFW.
Please also see Responses to Comment CDFW-1, CDFW-5, CDFW-6, CBD-3, and CBD-6.
Comment SEJA-21
The comment states that mitigation for SBKR could not be achieved through the Upper SAR
HCP since it is not yet approved.
Response to SEJA-21
The biological resources site survey conducted over the summer of 2015 (and summarized in
Appendix C of the DEIR) identified SBKR habitat and historic sitings within the City Creek
impact areas. The DEIR concludes on page 3.4-46 that SBKR may be displaced within the small
permanent impacted area in the creek and in the center of the streambed from perennial flow.
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-116 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
To address potential significant impacts to the SBKR, the DEIR includes Mitigation Measure
BIO-2 which commits Valley District to direct consultation with CDFW and USFWS for
potential impacts to SBKR and other listed species impacted in City Creek. This consultation
would be conducted directly and not through the Upper SAR HCP. Valley District is committed
to conduct future site-specific surveys and appropriate consultation with CDFW and/or USFWS,
the results of which will be used to determine proper mitigation for impacted. Valley District is
also committed to a 1:1 mitigation ratio for temporary habitat impacts resulting from
construction, and a 3:1 ratio for permanent impacts to species associated with affected alluvial fan
habitat, including the SBKR. It is Valley District’s goal to provide enhancement of SBKR habitat
near the area if appropriate to achieve maximum ecological value to the species, in coordination
with the Wildlife Agencies and in accordance with applicable regulations. However, if onsite
enhancement is not possible, Valley District will seek to obtain and manage high-quality habitat
or an area with the potential to become high quality through additional management adjacent to
the impact area and within designated critical habitat. Additionally, Valley District will add to
Mitigation Measure BIO-2 a subsection requiring pre-construction trapping and relocation of the
San Bernardino kangaroo rat, in accordance with accepted protocol, if determined necessary by
the USFWS during the Section 7 consultation process.
Please also see Responses to Comments USFWS-12, CBD-5, CBD-9, CBD-10, and CBD-12.
Comment SEJA-22
The comment states that Mitigation Measure BIO-2 does not address non-listed special status
species.
Response to SEJA-22
In response to this comment, Mitigation Measure BIO-2 has been modified as described in
Response to Comment SEJA-19.
Comment SEJA-23
The comment suggests an inconsistency in the description of impact to acreage of velocity class.
Response to SEJA-23
The DEIR summarizes the Reduced Discharge Study accurately on page 3.4-48 as follows:
The study concludes that a diversion of 6 MGD from the Santa Ana River at the
RIX discharge would reduce total flow by 18-21 percent, lower water depth in the
channel by a maximum of approximately 1.1 inches, reduce the wetted area by 6
percent, and result in an average change in a velocity class of 2 percent (not
exceeding 6 percent) of the total channel area. (See Appendix F)
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-117 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
The comment correctly notes that there is a discrepancy previously on page 3.4-45. In response to
the comment, the second paragraph on page 3.4-45 has been modified to accurately reflect the
Reduced Discharge conclusions and to be consistent with the summary on page 3.4-48:
The reduction of discharge from RIX will reduce water currently supporting riparian
habitats in the Santa Ana River below the RIX discharge point. The reduced discharge
study conducted by ESA for the project (ESA 2015b) determined that the diversion of 6
MGD of water from the Santa Ana River will not significantly change the existing
conditions within the river pertaining to flow, velocity and sedimentation. As noted on
page 8 of the reduced discharge study (Appendix F), the reduction of 6 MGD from the
RIX discharge would reduce water depth in the channel a maximum of approximately 1.1
inch, reduce the wetted area by 6 percent, and result in an average change in a velocity
class of 2 percent (not exceeding 6 percent) of the total channel area. (See Appendix F)
and would alter existing flow velocities on average by two percent. This would reduce
wetted area by three percent within the upper reach of the reduced discharge study area.
The stream width would be reduced by three 6 percent, but the riparian vegetation would
continue to encroach and hang over the stream channel as under existing conditions. The
small reduction in wetted area in the river channel would not significantly affect the
vitality of the riparian corridor currently supported by the perennial surface water
discharge.
Comment SEJA-24
The comment states that other projects covered by the Upper SAR HCP are not identified as
cumulative projects.
Response to SEJA-24
Table 4-1 appropriately identifies and lists those cumulative projects that were known at the time
the DEIR was published. The list includes recycled water projects for the City of San Bernardino
and Rialto as well as the HCP itself. The DEIR cumulative analysis recognizes that the HCP as it
is being developed will include new projects that may not be known at this time. The proposed
project would be compatible with the HCP and the cumulative impacts associated with its
implementation. The Reduced Discharge Study evaluates potential impacts of reduced flow up to
24 MGD to better understand cumulative reductions as described on page 3.4-63.
Comment SEJA-25
The comment questions whether discharge into City Creek would mitigate for impacts to SAS.
Response to SEJA-25
The DEIR identifies a discharge location within City Creek as a potential method of combining
groundwater recharge with riparian habitat creation. The proposed project does not suggest that
the introduction of aquatic features in City Creek would mitigate direct impacts of reduced
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-118 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
discharge at RIX. Rather, Mitigation Measure BIO-3 outlines specific measures that would
mitigate impacts to SAS.
Comment SEJA-26
The comment asks how funding would be applied to implement the mitigation measures of the
HMMP. The comment notes that a discharge permit would be required for discharge into Rialto
Creek and asks for additional details on the establishment of SAS in upper reaches of the SAR.
Response to SEJA-26
In adopting the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan that is inclusive of the mitigation
measures identified in the DEIR. Valley District is committing to fund the mitigation. Mitigation
is an integral part of the project and is included in the project construction and operational costs. .
As noted in Response to Comment SBMWD-7, Table 2-9 has been updated to acknowledge that a
low-threat discharge permit would be required from the RWQCB.
Mitigation Measure BIO-3 includes conservation measure SAS-6 to assist in relocating a SAS
population in the upper reaches of the SAR within the San Bernardino Mountains, not within City
Creek. The relocation would be conducted in consultation with USFWS under the authority of
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. The DEIR concludes that the combination of the
conservation measures listed in Mitigation Measure BIO-3 would minimize impacts to SAS to the
extent feasible.
Comment SEJA-27
The comment states that use of the SAR Pipeline would reduce the discharge reduction impact of
the proposed project.
Response to SEJA-27
As stated in the Project Description page 2-32, the SAR Pipeline would provide the flexibility to
convey treated water to the RIX facility to augment RIX discharges. The DEIR evaluates a
reduced diversion Alternative in Chapter 6. The DEIR concludes that the Reduced Diversion
Alternative would meet the project objectives to a lesser degree and would result in less benefit to
the SAS as a result of reduced mitigation commitments.
Comment SEJA-28
The comment states that the DEIR did not analyze the impacts of reduced SBKR habitat that
would result due to the introduction of water into City Creek.
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-119 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
Response to SEJA-28
The DEIR notes on page 3.4-47 that the perennial flow in City Creek would modify the existing
vegetation, increasing habitat for some listed species while slightly reducing SBKR habitat. The
DEIR concludes that the use of the creek channel for water-related habitat would not reduce
SBKR habitat in the surrounding channel that would require compensation. However, to provide
further assurances that any impacts to this habitat will be properly mitigated, Valley District is
committed to a 1:1 mitigation ratio for temporary habitat impacts resulting from construction, and
a 3:1 ratio for permanent impacts to RAFSS and associated species.
Please see Response to Comments CDFW-1, CBD-5, CBD-9, CBD-10, CBD-11, CBD-12.
Comment SEJA-29
The comment states that the DEIR states that City Creek discharge would provide SAS habitat.
Response to SEJA--29
The DEIR does not conclude that the City Creek discharge would create SAS habitat, but rather
riparian and aquatic habitat. The DEIR does not rely on the City Creek segment to support SAS
or mitigate direct impacts to SAS.
Comment SEJA-30
The comment disagrees with the conclusion in the DEIR that Critical Habitat would not be
adversely modified.
Response to SEJA-30
The DEIR describes potential impacts to Critical Habitat on page 3.4-54. The DEIR concludes
that as shown in the Reduced Discharge Study, reduction of 6 MGD from the RIX discharge
would not substantially reduce wetted acreage within SAS Critical Habitat. The segment of SAR
would continue to provide vital habitat to the listed SAS.
However, due to the currently degraded condition of the SAR habitat and a proposed reduction of
constant flow, the DEIR concludes that the impact to the Santa Ana sucker in particular is
properly deemed “significant and unavoidable.” At the same time, while the project will
eventually reduce river flows, the matrix on page 3.4-52 of the DEIR sets forth measures that
address numerous other factors that affect the long-term viability of the SAS. Improving those
factors compared to existing conditions will help ameliorate the impacts of the project resulting
from reduced flows, in part by creating a buffer against catastrophic events, including periodic
dewatering events, which could otherwise result in virtual extirpation of the species absent the
commitments Valley District is making.
The DEIR also recognizes that within the impacted areas within City Creek there is the potential
for sensitive plant and animal species to occur. For example, construction of the discharge facility
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-120 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
within either City Creek or East Twin Creek Spreading Grounds would result in approximately
2,000 square feet of temporary disturbance to RAFSS and approximately 1,000 square feet of
permanent disturbance. Once discharged into City Creek, the perennial flow would convert a
corridor of the existing mulefat and RAFSS habitat into riparian vegetation. This could impact
approximately 1.5 acres of RAFSS in the center of the creek channel. Mitigation Measures BIO-1
and BIO-2 commit Valley District to replacing impacted sensitive habitat that supports sensitive
species in consultation with CDFW and USFWS. In response to comments received on the DEIR,
the Mitigation Measures have been refined to expressly require replacement of permanently
impacted RAFSS habitat at a ratio no less than 3:1 in consultation with CDFW and USFWS.
Valley District is committed to and looks forward to working with the wildlife agencies to
develop appropriate compensation for the replacement of RAFSS habitat in City Creek with
riparian vegetation.
Please also see Responses to Comments CDFW-1, USFWS-1, USFWS-12, CBD-5, CBD-7,
CBD-8, CBD-9, and CBD-10.
Comment SEJA-31
The comment states that focused surveys for plants should have been done and that non-listed
species should be included in Mitigation Measure BIO-1.
Response to SEJA-31
As noted in Response to Comment SEJA-18, since conditions within City Creek change over
time due to flood events, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 rightfully commits Valley District to
conducting surveys closer to the time of the impact in order to more accurately quantify the
project’s effect and compensation requirements. The types of plant and animal species that could
be encountered during the time of the impact are well understood and identified in the DEIR.
However, their distribution may change over time, so surveys need to be conducted close to the
time of impact. The need to relocate individual plants or provide compensation will depend on
how effectively the discharge structures can avoid plants identified during pre-construction
surveys, as directed by CDFW and USFWS. Surveys done prior to project approval would not
best reflect the impacts that will occur at the time of construction of the project, because there
will be lag time between approval and construction and operation of the project as the regulatory
process continues. Mitigation Measure BIO-1 has been modified as shown in Response to
Comment SEJA-18 to be inclusive of non-listed plant species.
Please also see Responses to Comments CDFW-1, CBD-3, and CBD-6.
Comment SEJA-32
The comment states that BIO-2 does not include non-listed species and that burrowing owl
mitigation is inadequate.
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-121 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
Response to SEJA-32
The DEIR identifies all sensitive-status wildlife species that have a potential to be impacted by
the project, including the burrowing owl. For example, the DEIR notes on page 3.4-26 that
burrowing owl may be encountered at either the SNRC site or discharge locations and, as
required in the Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol, the field biologists noted suitable habitat within
the project impact areas. Mitigation Measure BIO-2 therefore commits Valley District to
conducting focused surveys, closer to the time of construction, which will guide development of a
mitigation strategy that will ensure any impact to the burrowing owl is rendered insignificant.
The surveys will be conducted in accordance with CDFW-recommended protocols. The results of
those future surveys will inform the selection of mitigation measures that will avoid or rectify any
impacts to the burrowing owl, potentially including compensation for loss of occupied habitat,
establishment of a suitable buffer (typically 500 feet) around nests, monitoring during
construction or delaying construction, and, if necessary, passive relocation in accordance with
CDFW’s 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation.
In addition, in response to this comment the mitigation measure has been expanded to include
pre-construction site clearing surveys to remove special status wildlife species from the impact
areas prior to construction.
Please also see Responses to Comments CDFW-5, CBD-6, SEJA-19 and SEJA-20.
Comment SEJA-33
The comment states that reduction of flow in the SAR below RIX does not contribute to the
recovery of the SAS.
Response to SEJA-33
As described beginning on page 3.4-48 of the DEIR, a Reduced Discharge Study was conducted
to estimate the impact to hydrology from the reduction of 6 MGD from the RIX discharge. The
Study concludes that minor impacts to depth and velocity would be expected. However, the DEIR
acknowledges on page 3.4-58 that any reduction in flow could be considered a contribution to
increased stress on a listed species and therefore the impact would be significant. The DEIR
further concludes within the matrix on page 3.4-52 that the proposed mitigation measures
presented by Valley District would provide substantial value to the listed species in all other
respects including habitat availability and habitat quality improvements. The DEIR concludes that
the benefits provided through the mitigation are consistent with the recovery of the species.
Furthermore, the DEIR recognizes that the project would be subject to approval and oversight by
the USFWS and CDFW whose mandate it is to effect species recovery. Finally, the HCP being
developed for the Upper SAR watershed represents a cooperative regional effort to
comprehensively address a multitude of factors that affect SAS survival rates, and will be carried
out in strict compliance with Section 10 of the federal Endangered Species Act. Should the HCP
not be completed in a timely manner, Mitigation Measure BIO-3 commits Valley District to the
preparation and implementation of a Santa Ana sucker (SAS) Habitat Monitoring and
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-122 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
Management Plan (HMMP), which will involve similar activities to the HCP and will be
approved by the USFWS and CDFW under their authority to enforce the federal and state
Endangered Species Acts. As noted in Mitigation Measure BIO-3 on page 3.4-56 of the DEIR,
the project would not reduce discharges to the river until either the HMMP or HCP are approved.
Comment SEJA-34
The comment states that the impact to SAS is not adequately mitigated.
Response to SEJA-34
Please see response to comment SEJA-33. The DEIR fully analyzes impacts to the SAS and
proposes extensive mitigation to counter those impacts. The DEIR concludes that the benefits
provided through the mitigation measures are consistent with the recovery of the species and in
fact substantially improve conditions compared with existing conditions. However, due to the
stressed nature of the species, Valley District has adopted a conservative approach and deemed
impacts to the SAS significant and unavoidable despite the improvements that will be made to
SAS habitat under Mitigation Measure BIO-3.
With respect to the SAS, please also see Responses to Comments CDFW-2, CDFW-3, USFWS-5,
USFWS-8, USFWS-10, CBD-16, CBD-17, CBD-18, and CBD-20.
With regard to other species and habitat, please also see Responses to Comments: CDFW-1,
CDFW-5, CDFW-6, USFWS-1, USFWS-12 CBD-3, CBD-5, CBD-6, CBD-7, CBD-8, CBD-9,
CBD-10, CBD-11, and CBD-12.
Comment SEJA-35
The comment suggests that additional mitigation is needed to mitigate impacts to RAFSS habitat
from discharge to City Creek.
Response to SEJA-35
The DEIR recognizes that introduction of perennial flow within City Creek will modify the
condition of the creek bed. Riparian habitat will emerge, replacing existing RAFSS scrub within
the center of the creek, leaving the wide creek flood plain unaffected. The DEIR concludes that
the addition of perennial flows within the creek would contribute to a native ecosystem within an
area of overlapping habitat values.
Construction of the discharge facility within either City Creek would result in approximately
2,000 square feet of temporary disturbance to RAFSS and approximately 1,000 square feet of
permanent disturbance. Once discharged into City Creek, the perennial flow would convert a
corridor of the existing mulefat and RAFSS habitat into riparian vegetation. This could impact
approximately 1.5 acres of RAFSS in the center of the creek channel. Mitigation Measures BIO-1
and BIO-2 commit Valley District to replacing impacted sensitive habitat that supports sensitive
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-123 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
species in consultation with CDFW and USFWS. In response to comments received on the DEIR,
the Mitigation Measures have been refined to expressly require replacement of permanently
impacted RAFSS habitat at a ratio no less than 3:1 in consultation with CDFW and USFWS.
Valley District is committed to and looks forward to working with the wildlife agencies to
develop appropriate compensation for the replacement of RAFSS habitat in City Creek with
riparian vegetation.
In response to comments and to provide further assurances that any impacts will be properly
mitigated, and as noted above, Valley District is committed to a 1:1 mitigation ratio for temporary
habitat impacts resulting from construction, and a 3:1 ratio for permanent impacts to RAFSS and
associated species.
Please see Response to Comment CDFW-1.
Comment SEJA-36
The comment states that non-listed plants are not included in Mitigation Measure BIO-1.
Response to SEJA-36
This comment is addressed above in Response to Comment SEJA-18.
Comment SEJA-37
The comment states that impacts to migratory corridor should be considered significant.
Response to SEJA-37
The DEIR evaluates impacts to migratory corridors on page 3.4-61. The DEIR concludes that the
modest change of water depth and velocity imposed by the reduced discharge of 6 MGD would
not reduce the viability of the river as a wildlife movement corridor. This is substantively
supported in the Reduced Discharge Study. The DEIR states that a similar type of habitat corridor
would result if the City Creek discharge point were to be used.
Comment SEJA-38
The comment states that no construction would occur from February through August and that
Mitigation Measure BIO-5 is inadequate to ensure the protection of birds during construction.
Response to SEJA-38
Mitigation Measure BIO-5 imposes survey requirements and impact avoidance requirements from
February through August, but does not preclude all construction during this period. Furthermore,
Mitigation Measure BIO-5 would impose standard impact minimization measure for summer-
time construction activities and would be included as conditions of approval in wildlife agencies
approvals.
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-124 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
Comment SEJA-39
The comment states that the DEIR should have analyzed cumulative impacts from other projects
which might result in future reductions in river discharges.
Response to SEJA-39
The DEIR did in fact evaluate the effects of cumulative discharge reductions in the Reduced
Discharge Study as summarized on page 3.4-63 and Figure 3.4-4. The DEIR concludes that
cumulative discharge reductions would increase the stress to SAS within the SAR. The Upper
SAR HCP is being prepared to address cumulative impacts recognizing the critical nature of the
SAR segment below RIX. Mitigation Measure BIO-3 commits Valley District to participating in
the Upper SAR HCP. The DEIR concludes that the proposed projects contribution to the
cumulative reduction in flow would be significant and unavoidable.
Comment SEJA-40
The comment suggests that an archaeologist should have surveyed the site prior to issuing the
DEIR.
Response to SEJA-40
As noted on page 3.5-25, a cultural resources survey was indeed conducted at the SNRC site and
treated water conveyance corridors in August, 2015. The DEIR describes in detail the results of
the survey. Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-3 commit Valley District to pre-
construction training of construction personnel and others on the site by a qualified archaeologist
and to document any resources that may be uncovered during construction.
Comment SEJA-41
The comment states that consultation with Native Americans should have been conducted.
Response to SEJA-41
As described on page 3.4-22, consultation was conducted with Native American groups. Table
3.5-2 summarizes the consultation.
Comment SEJA-42
The comment states that a geotechnical analysis should have been conducted to determine if the
site is suitable for construction.
Response to SEJA-42
The DEIR notes on page 3.6-21 that geotechnical investigations would be conducted pursuant to
Special Publication 117 to establish the appropriate construction methods and building design
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-125 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
features. This type of investigation would occur as part of the project design. The structures
would all be subject to CBC and AWWA structural design standards for the seismic hazards
present at the site. The DEIR concludes that the knowledge of the local geology as described on
page 3.6-2 through 3.6-8 adequately identifies the potential geologic hazards and that the building
standards adequately protect the structure from the potential hazards. The project description
identifies the need for some excavation to accommodate the facilities. If final project designs
were to require significantly more excavation as suggested in the comment, Valley District as
Lead Agency would determine whether additional impact analysis would be required to comply
with CEQA requirements.
Comment SEJA-43
The comment states that the DEIR ignores a public safety concern that could result if seismic
hazards resulted in failure of the treatment plant.
Response to SEJA-43
The DEIR recognizes on page 3.6-21 that seismic hazards are present in the region and describes
how engineering controls through seismic resistant designs would minimize the potential for
failure of the facility. The Operational Procedures for all treatment plants include contingencies
for emergency situations including seismically-induced emergencies. The SNRC would include
emergency design features to ensure that sewage releases would be avoided during emergency
conditions.
Comment SEJA-44
The comment states that the DEIR defers the quantification of the potential liquefaction hazard.
Response to SEJA-44
The DEIR notes on page 3.6-21 that geotechnical investigations would be conducted pursuant to
Special Publication 117 to establish the appropriate construction methods and building design
features. This type of investigation would occur as part of the project design. The structures
would all be subject to CBC and AWWA structural design standards for the seismic hazards
present at the site. The DEIR concludes that the knowledge of the local geology as described on
page 3.6-2 through 3.6-8 adequately identifies the potential geologic hazards and that the building
standards adequately protect the structure from the potential hazards.
It is important to note that the threat of liquefaction during a seismic event only occurs where the
groundwater table is quite high. The project is located in an area that does not experience high
groundwater. .
Comment SEJA-45
The comment states that subsidence should be a potentially significant impact of the project.
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-126 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
Response to SEJA-45
The DEIR notes that subsidence has historically been caused by water extraction activities. The
DEIR concludes that the project would not extract groundwater excessively and would instead
contribute to elevated groundwater levels that would not induce subsidence.
Comment SEJA-46
The comment states that the DEIR should have evaluated GHG emissions of both the SBWRP
and SNRC at full capacity.
Response to SEJA-46
The DEIR evaluates GHG emissions associated with the proposed project on page 3.7-12. The
DEIR estimates the project’s GHG emissions. The emissions are summarized in Table 3.7-2. The
DEIR concludes that impacts would be less than the SCAQMD recommended significance
threshold. The DEIR acknowledges that this is a conservative estimate since SBWRP may
decrease emissions due to the reduced treatment requirements, but the analysis does not depend
on this reduction for its significance conclusions.
Comment SEJA-47
The comment states that the DEIR concludes that the proposed project would not result in
handling of hazardous materials near a school.
Response to SEJA-47
The DEIR recognizes on page 3.8-14 three schools within one-quarter mile of the proposed
SNRC. The DEIR concludes that the proximity of the schools does not in itself constitute a
significant impact of the project since emissions would be controlled and hazardous materials
would be handled according to regulations.
Comment SEJA-48
The comment states that the discharge to City Creek would significantly impact water quality
since the creek has a MUN designation.
Response to SEJA-48
The DEIR evaluates impacts to surface water quality on page 3.9-21. The DEIR concludes that
since the creek is normally dry, existing surface water quality would not be reduced. However,
the DEIR recognizes that the Basin Plan-identified Beneficial Uses of the creek segment include
Municipal Use. As a result, the DEIR concludes that a discharge permit from the RWQCB will
need to take into consideration potential impacts to drinking water prior to discharge. The DEIR
points out that from a permitting standpoint, this could occur with a beneficial use designation
change or an approval from the California Division of Drinking Water. Nonetheless, from a water
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-127 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
quality impact standpoint, the DEIR concludes that the recharge of recycled water into the ground
is consistent with State-wide recycled water policies and local water supply development
priorities in a manner that is fully protective of public health.
Comment SEJA-49
The comment states that the discharge to the Bunker Hill Groundwater Basin could significantly
impact groundwater quality and suggests that the DEIR should have included an anti-degradation
analysis.
Response to SEJA-49
The DEIR evaluates potential impacts to groundwater quality on page 3.9-22. The DEIR
concludes that recharge of groundwater with recycled water is allowable under Title 22 of the
California Code of Regulations and consistent with state-wide recycled water reuse policies. The
DEIR acknowledges that the recharge activities would be subject to compliance with discharge
permits from the RWQCB and DDW. The permits will require levels of treatment necessary to
ensure that the water quality objectives are met, subject to an anti-degradation analysis. Valley
District is currently working with the RWQCB to prepare information needed to conclude the
anti-degradation analysis. The DEIR concludes that implementation of the proposed project
would require approvals from the RWQCB to ensure consistency with the Basin Plan and
protection of groundwater quality and public health. Mitigation Measure HYDRO-2 imposes
additional protections to local pumpers through performance standards to ensure impacts are less
than significant.
Comment SEJA-50
The comment asks how the potential sediment transport in City Creek was determined to be
minor.
Response to SEJA--50
The DEIR describes on page 3.9-24 that the introduction of perennial flow in the City Creek
would result in minor amounts of sediment movement. However, the creek bed is subjected to
high storm event flows that move large quantities of sediment downstream. In comparison to the
major storm events that do much of the river bed sculpting, the much lower velocities expected
from the City Creek discharge would be minor.
Comment SEJA-51
The comment states that the DEIR should have identified cumulative reductions in the discharge
and determined a plan to maintain minimum flows.
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-128 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
Response to SEJA-51
Table 4-1 of the DEIR lists cumulative projects including proposed recycled water projects. The
Final EIR has been augmented at page 4-16 as shown below to further support this conclusion.
The proposed project would contribute to the cumulative reduction in flows to the SAR
that reach Prado Dam and Orange County. As more recycled water projects are
implemented in the upper SAR watershed to support local water supply development and
sustainable groundwater management practices, less surface water will reach the Prado
Basin. However, pursuant to the 1969 Stipulated Judgment, minimum flows to Prado
Dam will be maintained to ensure that Orange County receives its appropriative water
rights. The cumulative reduction in surface water reaching Prado Dam would not
significantly impact local drainage patterns, floodplains, downstream water rights, or
surface water or groundwater quality. The cumulative reduction in surface water flows
may result in depletion of groundwater levels near Prado that are also subject to local
pumping. However, the proposed project would result in increased groundwater levels in
subbasins higher in the watershed. The proposed project would support sustainable
management of groundwater basins within the entire Upper Santa Ana River Watershed
as required under Sustainable Groundwater Management Act and will assist in
minimizing long-term cumulative impacts to groundwater.
Comment SEJA-52
The comment suggests that the proposed project is not consistent with the City of Highland’s land
use designations.
Response to SEJA-52
The DEIR describes on page 3.10-10 that the proposed treatment facility is exempt from local
zoning ordinance under Government Code section 53091 and that the proposed administration
facility is consistent with the City of Highland’s land use designations.
Please also see Response to Comment Highland-1.
Comment SEJA-53
The comment states that noise control features should be required in the DEIR.
Response to SEJA-53
Mitigation Measure NOISE-1 requires that construction contractors provide necessary controls to
ensure noise ordinances are met. The measure appropriately allows for the control features to fit
the noise impact wherever that may be on the construction site. If noise barriers are needed to
meet the noise standard, then the mitigation measure ensures that they will be installed.
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-129 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
Comment SEJA-54
The comment states that there is no indication that the Administration Center will be made
available to the public in a manner that benefits the low-income community.
Response to SEJA-54
The DEIR describes the demographic and economic status of the local neighborhood. The DEIR
acknowledges that the neighborhood is one of the lowest for median income in the area. The
DEIR concludes that the facility will benefit the community through providing open space and
community meeting rooms. Valley District is committed to providing this asset to the community
including open space features open to the public.
Comment SEJA-55
The comment states that if the habitat in City Creek is needed to participate in the HCP, then
what will happen if a discharge permit is not issued.
Response to SEJA-55
The project does not rely on the establishment of habitat in City Creek as mitigation for any
impact. The resultant habitat could merely provide incidental habitat benefits. The DEIR
evaluates three different treated-water conveyance systems any of which on its own could satisfy
the water supply objectives of the project.
Comment SEJA-56
The comment states that the cumulative projects list should have included other recycled water
projects rather than just public work projects.
Response to SEJA-56
Table 4-1 lists cumulative projects provided by the planning departments of local cities including
currently proposed recycled water projects. The list of projects provides a perspective on planned
construction activities that will contribute to cumulative conditions. The project list is an
appropriate method for assessing cumulative impacts pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section
15130. Cumulative air impacts are evaluated on page 3.3-28 in addition to page 4-12.
Comment SEJA-57
The comment suggests that if a project has a less than significant air impact it is not necessarily
less than significant at the cumulative impact level.
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-130 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
Response to SEJA-57
The DEIR conclusion methodology is consistent with the SCAQMD’s CEQA Compliance
Guidelines. Furthermore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(a)3, CEQA recognizes
that a project’s incremental contribution to an impact may be considered less than cumulatively
considerable even when the cumulative condition is poor.
Comment SEJA-58
The comment states that the DEIR does not quantify the cumulative reduction in SAR flows or
the commensurate impact on riparian vegetation. The comment states that the Mitigation Measure
BIO -3 does not indicate how long the invasive reductions would occur.
Response to SEJA-58
Please see Responses to Comments CDFW-3, CBD-23, and OCWD-1.
Comment SEJA-59
The comment states that not knowing the quality of the cumulative flow reduction makes an
assessment of cumulative impacts difficult.
Response to SEJA-59
The future reduction in discharges is speculative, and depends on many factors including ability
to obtain permits for other proposed projects and costs of water recycling. The DEIR makes no
assumptions for the ultimate quantity of the cumulative discharge reduction, but rather relies on
the Upper SAR HCP to establish a low flow requirement that all recycled water projects
combined must exceed. Acting as a cumulative impact mitigation, the Upper SAR HCP will
provide the roadmap for species recovery that will include maintaining certain conditions in the
river. The HMMP conservation measures have been designed to be complementary to the
ultimate HCP requirements, providing project level mitigation that supports the ultimate
cumulative mitigation as well.
Comment SEJA-60
The comment states that just because GHG emissions are not significant on their own does not
mean they are not cumulatively considerable.
Response to SEJA-60
As noted on page 3.7-11, the GHG emissions impact is by definition a cumulative impact. The
DEIR concludes that GHG emissions are less than significant based on a significance threshold
recommended for use by the SCAQMD.
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-131 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
Comment SEJA-61
The comment suggests acknowledgement that water supply supports population growth.
Response to SEJA-61
The DEIR does acknowledge on page 5-5 that the project would remove an obstacle to growth
that would result in significant and unavoidable secondary effects of growth already identified by
local planning jurisdictions. The DEIR concludes that these impacts would result in a significant
and unavoidable effect of the project.
Comment SEJA-62
The comment requests the total amount of water to be discharged at the identified discharge
locations.
Response to SEJA-62
The DEIR evaluates three distinct discharge location alternatives. Valley District intends to
construct one or more of these alternatives to receive the full projected 10 MGD of flow, except
when water is instead diverted through the SAR Pipeline.
Comment SEJA-63
The comment states that the DEIR evaluates more than 3 Alternatives.
Response to SEJA-63
The comment is correct in pointing out the error on page 6-7 of the document. In response to this
comment, the following change has been made to the DEIR:
6.2 Project Alternatives
Five Three alternatives were selected for detailed analysis. The goal for evaluating these
alternatives is to identify alternatives that would avoid or lessen the significant
environmental effects of the project, while attaining most of the project objectives.
Significant impacts of the project include construction air emissions, construction noise,
modification of Santa Ana sucker habitat, and secondary effects of growth.
Comment SEJA-64
The comment states that the alternatives should be different enough to make a difference in the
impact analysis for environmental justice. The comment also suggests that cultural resources are
not adequately assessed in Alternative 2.
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-132 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
Response to SEJA-64
The DEIR evaluates a reasonable range of alternatives to reduce impacts of the proposed project
including a SNRC location alternative (Alternative 2). The location for the Alternative 2 property
is constrained by the need to be low in the watershed. As a result, it is in close proximity to the
proposed project. Nonetheless, the alternative minimizes potentially significant impacts of
construction to the immediate neighborhood. CEQA does not require that alternatives be
evaluated exhaustively. Although no cultural resource survey was conducted for the Alternative 2
site, the area was included in the literature search area and known cultural sites near it are
included in the Cultural Report.
Comment SEJA-65
The comment states that the Reduced Capacity Alternative (Alternative 3) is not adequately
described or analyzed.
Response to SEJA-65
Alternative 3: Reduced Treatment Capacity Alternative is described on page 6-10. The
Alternative reduces the size of the construction effort and ultimate energy use, truck trips, and
chemical usage. However the alternative does not avoid any significant impacts of the proposed
project and reduces the benefits of the project.
Comment SEJA-66
The comment suggests that the Reduced Capacity Alternative (Alternative 3) would reduce
biosolids truck trips and would create an obstacle to growth.
Response to SEJA-66
The comment is correct that the Alternative would result in slightly fewer biosolids truck trips
than the proposed project, but not enough to reduce any significant impacts. Furthermore,
although the reduced capacity could pose a limit to growth that would reduce some significant
effects of growth, it would also increase some significant impacts of growth including water
supply and wastewater treatment requirements.
Comment SEJA-67
The comment states that the location of the Plunge Creek Alternative has not been identified and
is therefore difficult to evaluate. The comment asks how much water would be conveyed to this
location.
Response to SEJA-67
The project would convey the full 6 MGD of water to the Plunge Creek Basins under this
alternative. The Wash Plan refers to the San Bernardino Valley Water Conservation District’s
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-133 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
Upper Santa Ana River Wash Land Management Plan. Since the project would be located in an
area designated in the Wash Plan for open space, the DEIR concludes that it would result in
greater land use impacts.
Comment SEJA-68
The comment states that the Reduced Diversion Alternative is confusing and that the difference
could be significant to the SAS.
Response to SEJA-68
The Reduced Diversion Alternative would treat all effluent from the EVWD service area, which
is currently 6 MGD, and provide 3 MGD to RIX through the SAR Pipeline. The alternative would
reduce the significant impact to the SAS, but would still result in a significant impact to the SAS
since even a 3 MGD reduction would contribute stress to the listed species under the same impact
assessment methodology made for the proposed project.
Comment SEJA-69
The comment states that despite another alternative, the DEIR improperly concludes the project is
the environmentally superior alternative. The comment also states that there is no viable habitat
for SAS in City Creek, nor can it be created.
Response to SEJA-69
The comment misunderstands the rationale for concluding that the project would be the
environmentally superior alternative. The DEIR concludes that the mitigation provided by the
proposed project in addition to the water supply benefits makes it environmentally superior.
However, the benefits provided by Mitigation Measure BIO-3 do not include the creation of
riparian habitat in City Creek, but rather a list of immediate habitat improvements below RIX and
other actions. The City Creek discharge is not provided as mitigation for any project impact.
Comment SEJA-70
The comment states that security of the SNRC has not been described, potential hazards assessed,
or processes described.
Response to SEJA-70
The DEIR describes the SNRC site security on page 2-14, evaluates potential hazards in Section
3.8, and describes treatment processes in section 2.4.1.
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-134 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter – Anthony Serrano (Serrano)
Comment Serrano-1
The comment expresses concern that there are no cost estimates for the proposed project listed in
the Draft EIR and states this is required pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21001(g).
Response to Serrano-1
The DEIR does not list or evaluate the cost of the project because cost is not an environmental
impact. Public Resources Code section 21001(g) does not set forth the requirements for the
contents of an EIR, but is a statement of policy requiring consideration of qualitative, economic,
and technical factors, long-term benefits and costs, short-term benefits and costs, and alternatives
to proposed actions affecting the environment. This policy is amplified by Public Resources Code
section 21002.1, which states that the purpose of an environmental impact report is to identify the
significant effects on the environment of a project, to identify alternatives to the project, and to
indicate the manner in which those significant effects can be mitigated or avoided.
Public Resources code section 21061 specifies that the purpose of an EIR is to provide public
agencies and the public in general with detailed information “about the effect which a proposed
project is likely to have on the environment” and to address mitigation of those impacts and
potential alternatives to the proposed project. Lead Agencies are directed to consider economic
costs “in deciding whether changes in a project are feasible to reduce or avoid the significant
effects on the environment identified in the EIR.”
Sections 15120-15132 of the CEQA Guidelines outline the contents required of EIRs. Section
15131 makes clear that a Lead Agency may but need not include economic information in an
EIR, or may present this information in whatever form the agency desires, shall not treat
economic effects of a project as significant effects on the environment, and must reserve the focus
of its analysis for physical changes to the environment. As an EIR need not include information
regarding the costs of a project, the absence of this information cannot render the DEIR
inadequate.
Costs of the proposed SNRC project are, however, included in the Update of the Recycled Water
Feasibility Study 2015. As the responsible decision makers, the Valley District Board of
Directors will consider project costs when considering approval of the project, which will occur
as a separate action from the certification of the EIR.
Comment Serrano-2
The comment states that the Harmony Project in the City of Highland is supposed to be connected
to the proposed project according to the commenter’s conversation with the City of Highland
Director of Community Development, but the Draft EIR does not include any provisions for this
connection.
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-135 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
Response to Serrano-2
The proposed project would divert the existing wastewater flows in the EVWD service area to the
new SNRC. Future flows within the service area would be conveyed to the SNRC as well. The
project does not propose constructing new sewer collection facilities for the Harmony Project or
any future connections in the service area. Because the comment does not address the project or
the contents of the DEIR, no further response is available or required.
Comment Serrano-3
The comment expresses concern that there is no reference in the DEIR to the water pollution
caused by Lockheed Martin.
Response to Serrano-3
The DEIR recognizes that the Bunker Hill groundwater basin is compromised by legacy
contamination on page 3.9-6. Figure 3.9-3 shows the known locations of the contamination
plumes from both the Norton Airforce Base and from testing operations in Mentone that are
referred to in the comment. The DEIR concludes that the groundwater recharge operations would
avoid impacting these plumes.
Comment Serrano-4
The comment further expresses concern that the old Lockheed Martin propulsion company
polluting Bunker Hill Basin and Mill Creek spreading grounds is not addressed as an issue in the
DEIR and that there is no mitigation plan to prevent further contamination of the proposed
project.
Response to Serrano-4
Please see Response to Comment Serrano-3
Comment Serrano-5
The comment states that the DEIR fails to address the issues associated with the Lockheed
groundwater basin contamination and the status of this problem.
Response to Serrano-5
Please see Response to Comment Serrano-3
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-136 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter – Fred Yauger
Comment Yauger-1
Fred Yauger supports implementation of the Sterling Natural Resource Center.
Response to Yauger-1
The comment is noted for the record and no response to comment is necessary.
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-137 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter – Anthony Serrano 2 (Serrano 2)
Comment Serrano 2-1
The comment provides background, summarizes the contents of the letter and the commenter’s
concerns, and requests additions to and recirculation of the DEIR.
Response to Serrano 2-1
The contents of the comment letter are addressed below and in the Responses to Comments
Serrano 1-5. Valley District notes that this comment letter was received before the hearing on the
certification of the EIR, but after the close of the public comment period. Although Valley
District is not required to respond to untimely comments, it has prepared these responses for
inclusion in the FEIR.
Comment Serrano 2-2
The comment references Public Resources Code section 21001(g) and Section 15088.5(a)(4) of
the CEQA Guidelines, and states that the DEIR did not include any cost information.
Response to Serrano 2-2
Please see Response to Comment Serrano-1.
Comment Serrano 2-3
The comment states that the DEIR does not disclose the EVWD lawsuits against the San
Bernardino International Airport Authority.
Response to Serrano 2-3
Litigation between EVWD and SBIAA is not part of the proposed project, is not an
environmental impact of the proposed project, and is not one of the “physical environmental
conditions” that must be included in the description of the baseline environmental setting.
Accordingly, the litigation is not required to be addressed in the EIR, and so the absence of this
information does not affect the adequacy of the EIR. Moreover, the litigation referenced in the
comment concerned property unrelated to the SNRC parcels, has been resolved through
settlement by the parties, and the settlement agreement has no impact on the proposed SNRC
project.
Figure 2-1 of the DEIR depicts the location of the proposed SNRC site in relation to the SBIA,
and Chapter 3.8 of the DEIR notes that the project site is located approximately one half mile
southeast of the San Bernardino International Airport, within the SBIAA’s Influence Area (pages
3.8-4, 3.8-6). Chapter 3.11 of the DEIR identifies airports and aircraft overflights as existing
sources of noise. It concludes that temporary noise impacts resulting from construction will be
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-138 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
significant and unavoidable, that operational noise will be less-than-significant, and that the
project’s noise impacts are not cumulatively considerable.
Comment Serrano -.4
The comment states that there is no disclosure of the old and ongoing Lockheed Propulsion Co.
plumes of trichloroethylene and plumes of perchlorate.
Response to Serrano 2-4
The DEIR recognizes that the Bunker Hill groundwater basin is compromised by legacy
contamination on page 3.9-6. Figure 3.9-3 shows the known locations of the contamination
plumes, including plumes of perchlorate, from both the Norton Airforce Base and from testing
operations in Mentone that are referred to in the comment. The DEIR concludes that the
groundwater recharge operations would avoid impacting these plumes.
Comment Serrano 2-5
The comment states that the DEIR did not disclose the Mid-Valley landfill plume or perchlorate
located in Rialto.
Response to Serrano 2-5
The Mid Valley Landfill contamination plume is located in Rialto near the SR-210 within the
Rialto-Colton Subbasin shown in Figure 3.9-2. The supplemental Rialto wells would be located
near RIX overlying the Riverside-Arlington Subbasin. The contamination plume referred to in the
comment letter is too far from the project components to impact water quality at the project’s
Rialto wells.
Comment Serrano 2-6
The comment states that there is no disclosure of Governor Brown’s signing of S.B. 88 in 2015,
and asks if savings can be achieved by reducing the number of water agencies.
Response to Serrano 2-6
The Senate Bill 88 authorizes the SWRCB to order consolidation of water districts under certain
limited circumstances. The enactment of S.B. 88 has no bearing on the environmental impacts of
the proposed project. Valley District is not being considered for consolidation at this time, and
any suggestion that Valley District will be consolidated at some future date under this legislation
is entirely speculative. Accordingly, the EIR need not address S.B. 88. In addition, CEQA does
not require analysis of hypothetical cost savings that could be achieved by reorganization of other
agencies, or analysis of unrelated rate increases proposed by other agencies.
Please see Response to Comment Serrano-1.
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-139 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
Comment Serrano 2-7
The comment states that there is no disclosure of EVWD’s decision to close down Plant 150
operations during October 2015 and asks how this will affect water supply to the project.
Response to Serrano 2-7
The Plant 150 project was proposed to remove contamination from certain wells and was deemed
infeasible after an evaluation of the water resources in the EVWD’s Water System Master Plan.
The Plant 150 project will not affect water supply for the SNRC project.
Comment Serrano 2-8
The comment notes that the City of Highland proposes Mello-Roos funding for the proposed
Harmony Project and inquires whether pending A.B. 1666 will impact funding for the project.
Response to Serrano 2-8
The proposed project would divert existing flows from the EVWD service area to the SNRC.
Connections to other proposed projects, including the proposed Harmony Project, are not under
consideration, and so funding for such other proposed projects has no effect on the proposed
project. The DEIR, which evaluates the potential physical impacts to the environment from the
proposed project, is not required to address funding sources for other projects.
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-140 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
11. Responses to Comments
Comment Letter – Anthony Serrano Emails
Comment Serrano Emails-1
The comment includes corresponds between the commenter and the San Bernardino International
Airport Authority regarding unrelated settled litigation.
Response to Serrano Emails-1
The comment does not address the contents of the EIR. No further response is therefore available
or necessary.
Comment Serrano Emails-2
The comment includes correspondence between the commenter and Kamron Saremi regarding
groundwater contamination.
Response to Serrano Emails-2
Regarding the Lockheed contamination, please see Responses to Comments Serrano-3 and
Serrano-2.4. The comment does not otherwise address the contents of the EIR. No further
response is necessary.
Comment Serrano Emails-3
The comment provides information regarding State Board funding for recycled water projects and
notes that Valley District and EVWD are not listed as recipients of funding.
Response to Serrano Emails-3
The comment does not address the contents of the EIR. No further response is therefore available
or necessary.
Sterling Natural Resources Center 11-141 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
CHAPTER 12
Clarifications and Modifications
12.1 Introduction
The following clarifications and revisions are intended to update the Draft EIR in response to the
comments received during the public review period. These changes, which have been
incorporated into the Draft EIR, constitute the Final EIR, to be presented to the Valley District
Board of Directors for certification and approval. These modifications clarify, amplify, or make
insignificant changes to the EIR. Revisions to the EIR have not resulted in new significant
impacts or mitigation measures or increased the severity of an impact. None of the criteria for
recirculation set forth in the CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5(a) have been met, and
recirculation of the EIR is not required.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(a):
(a) A Lead Agency is required to recirculate an EIR when significant new information is
added to the EIR after public notice is given of the availability of the draft EIR for public
review under Section 15087 but before certification…”Significant new information”
requiring recirculation include, for example, a disclosure showing that:
(1) A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new
mitigation measure proposed to be implemented.
(2) A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless
mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance.
(3) A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from the
others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the environmental impacts of the
project, but the project’s proponents decline to adopt it.
(4) The draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in
nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded.
The revisions compiled in this Chapter do not constitute “Significant new information” noted in
Section 15088.5(a)(1) since no new sigwnificant environmental impacts have been identified
following the publication of the Draft EIR. Although new mitigation measures have been added
based on input from commenters to ensure impacts remain less than significant, these new
measures would not in and of themselves result in significant impacts nor do they represent that a
Sterling Natural Resource Center 12-1 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
12. Clarifications and Modifications
new impact was identified. Rather, the measures provide for greater assurance of less than
significant impacts.
The revisions compiled in this Chapter do not constitute “Significant new information” noted in
Section 15088.5(a)(2) since none of the modifications would result in a substantial increase in
impacts already identified. Rather, the revisions are designed to further reduce the potential for
significant impacts.
The revisions compiled in this Chapter do not constitute “Significant new information” noted in
Section 15088.5(a)(3) since no new alternatives have been identified that would clearly lessen
impacts.
Finally, the revisions compiled in this Chapter do not constitute “Significant new information”
noted in Section 15088.5(a)(4) since the EIR is not fundamentally and basically inadequate and
conclusory in nature. The EIR compiles information available at the time of publication to assist
in evaluating the values and risks of moving forward with a Permit compliance program.
12.2 Clarification and Modifications
The changes to the Draft EIR are listed by section and page number. Text which has been
removed is shown in this chapter with a strikethrough line, while text that has been added is
shown with an underline. All of the changes shown in this section have also been made in the
corresponding Final EIR sections. The addition of the cumulative impact conclusions shown as
underlined in Table ES-1 do not reflect new conclusions, but rather that the conclusions from
Chapter 4 have been compiled into the table, since they were inadvertently left off the table in the
Draft EIR. Please refer to Chapter 11, Responses to Comments, for referenced comment letters
and corresponding comments.
See next page showing entire Table ES-1 containing Mitigation Measure refinements.
Sterling Natural Resource Center 12-2 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
12. Clarifications and Modifications
TABLE ES-1
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FOR THE STERLING NATURAL RESOURCE CENTER
Impacts Mitigation Measures
Significance before
Mitigation
Significance if Mitigation
is Implemented
Aesthetics
3.1-1: The project would have a significant impact
if it would have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista.
None required Less than Significant Not applicable
3.1-2: The project could have a significant impact
if it would substantially damage scenic resources,
including but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state
scenic highway.
None required No Impact Not Applicable
3.1-3: The project would not substantially
degrade the existing visual character or quality of
the site and its surroundings.
AES-1: Aboveground buildings/structures associated with the
proposed SNRC shall be designed to be consistent with the aesthetic
qualities of existing structures in the surrounding area to minimize
contrasting features.
AES-2: During project design, a landscape plan shall be prepared for
the SNRC that restores disturbed areas and minimizes effects to
local character. Valley District shall implement and maintain the
landscape plan.
Significant Less than significant
3.1-4: The project would not have a significant
impact due to substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views
in the area.
None required Less than significant Not applicable
Agriculture and Forestry Resources
3.2-1: The project would not convert Prime
Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on
the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural
use
None required No Impact Not applicable
3.2-2: The project would not conflict with existing
zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract.
None required No Impact Not Applicable
3.2-3: The project would not conflict with existing
zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land,
timberland or timberland zoned Timberland
Production.
None required No Impact Not Applicable
Sterling Natural Resource Center 12-3 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
12. Clarifications and Modifications
Impacts Mitigation Measures
Significance before
Mitigation
Significance if Mitigation
is Implemented
3.2-4: The project would not result in the loss of
forest land or conversion of forest land to non-
forest use.
None required No Impact Not Applicable
3.2-5: The project would not involve other
changes in the existing environment which, due
to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use.
None required No Impact Not Applicable
Air Quality
3.3-1: The project could conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable air quality plan.
None required Less than significant Not applicable
3.3-2: The project could violate any air quality
standard or contribute substantially to an existing
or projected air quality violation.
AIR-1: For off-road construction equipment greater than 50 HP, all
engines shall be certified as USEPA Tier 3 at a minimum and Tier 4
where available.
Significant Significant and
unavoidable for
construction; Less than
significant for operations.
3.3-3: The program could result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant
for which the project region is non-attainment
under an applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard (including releasing emissions
which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors).
AIR-1 Significant Significant and
unavoidable for NOx
emissions
3.3-4: The project could expose sensitive
receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
None required Less than Significant Not Applicable
3.3-5: The proposed program could create
objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people.
AIR-2: Valley District shall prepare and implement an Odor Impact
Minimization Plan that includes a monitoring and reporting plan. The
plan shall include the following elements at a minimum:
• Identification of responsible parties
• Description of odor control system design and performance
standards
• Odor control system operations plan
• Identification of fence-line odor monitoring and reporting
program
• Achievable odor remediation actions and implementation
protocol
• Local community outreach program
Significant Less than significant
Sterling Natural Resource Center 12-4 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
12. Clarifications and Modifications
Impacts Mitigation Measures
Significance before
Mitigation
Significance if Mitigation
is Implemented
Cumulative Air Quality Impacts Implement Mitigation Measures AIR-1 through AIR-2 Significant Significant and
unavoidable for short-term
impacts
Biological Resources
3.4-1: Construction and operation of the project
could have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications on plant
and wildlife species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special-status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by
CDFW or USFWS.
BIO-1: Disturbance to Special-Status Plants. The following
measures will reduce potential project-related impacts to special-
status plant species that may occur adjacent to the project site within
City Creek to a less than significant level. Potential project-related
impacts may result from the construction of the pipeline extension
and discharge structure within City Creek, Redlands Basins, and/or
the East Twin Creek Spreading Grounds.
a) Prior to the start of construction within City Creek, Redlands
Basins, and/or the East Twin Creek Spreading Grounds, a
focused botanical survey will be conducted to determine the
presence/absence of any of the special-status species with a
moderate or high potential to occur. The focused botanical
survey will be conducted by a botanist or qualified biologist
knowledgeable in the identification of local special-status plant
species, and according to accepted protocol outlined by the
CNPS and/or CDFW.
b) If a special status state or federally listed plant species is
discovered in a project impact area, informal consultation with
CDFW and/or USFWS will be required prior to the impact
occurring to develop an appropriate avoidance strategy.
Depending on the sensitivity of the species, relocation, site
restoration, or other habitat improvement actions may be an
acceptable option to avoid significant impacts, as determined
through consultation with the resource agencies.
c) If impact avoidance of a state or federally-listed species is not
feasible, Valley District shall quantify the impacted acreage
supporting state or federally-listed plant species within the
construction area and estimated perennial flow area and
prepare a Biological Assessment pursuant to Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act and Section 2081 of the State
Endangered Species Act. The Biological Assessment shall
quantify compensation requirements for affected plants
species. Valley District shall implement the conservation
measures and compensation requirements identified through
consultation by USACE with both CDFW and USFWS.
d) Permanent impacts to RAFSS habitat from construction and
operation of the discharge including within the City Creek
channel resulting from perennial flow shall require on-site
replacement or off-site compensation at a ratio of at least 3:1 in
consultation with CDFW and USFWS. Temporary impacts to
Significant Significant and
unavoidable for
modifications to Santa Ana
sucker habitat.
Less than significant with
mitigation for other impacts
Sterling Natural Resource Center 12-5 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
12. Clarifications and Modifications
Impacts Mitigation Measures
Significance before
Mitigation
Significance if Mitigation
is Implemented
RAFSS habitat would be mitigated at a ratio of at least 1:1 in
consultation with CDFW and USFWS.
BIO-2: Disturbance to Special-Status Wildlife. The following
measures will reduce potential project-related impacts to special-
status wildlife species that may occur within disturbed and native
habitats, to a less than significant level. Potential project-related
impacts may result from construction of the SNRC, construction of
the discharge structures within City Creek and other discharge
locations, and perennial discharges to City Creek or other discharge
locations.
a) Prior to the start of construction within City Creek or other
discharge locations, Valley District shall conduct focused
surveys within the project impact areas to determine if any
state or federally-listed wildlife species (southwestern willow
flycatcher, coastal California gnatcatcher, San Bernardino
kangaroo rat, and least Bell’s vireo) are located within project
impact areas. Focused surveys will be conducted by a qualified
and/or permitted biologist, following approved survey protocol.
Survey results will be forwarded to CDFW and USFWS. If state
or federally-listed species are determined to occur on the
project site with the potential to be impacted by the project,
consultation with CDFW and/or USFWS will be required.
b) If impact avoidance is not feasible, Valley District shall quantify
the impacted acreage supporting state or federally-listed
wildlife species within the construction area and estimated
perennial flow area and prepare a Biological Assessment
pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and
Section 2081 of the State Endangered Species Act. The
Biological Assessment shall quantify compensation
requirements for affected wildlife species. Valley District shall
implement the conservation measures and compensation
requirements identified through consultation by USACE with
both CDFW and USFWS.
c) Prior to the start of construction of the SNRC building and the
recycled water pipeline along 6th Street, focused burrowing owl
surveys shall be conducted to determine the presence/absence
of burrowing owl adjacent to the project area. The focused
burrowing owl survey must be conducted by a qualified
biologist and following the survey guidelines included in the
CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012). If
burrowing owl is observed within undeveloped habitat within or
immediately adjacent to the project impact area,
avoidance/minimization measures would be required such as
establishing a suitable buffer around the nest (typically 500-
feet) and monitoring during construction, or delaying
Sterling Natural Resource Center 12-6 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
12. Clarifications and Modifications
Impacts Mitigation Measures
Significance before
Mitigation
Significance if Mitigation
is Implemented
construction until after the nest is no longer active and the
burrowing owls have left. However, if burrowing owl avoidance
is infeasible, a qualified biologist shall implement a passive
relocation program in accordance with the Example
Components for Burrowing Owl Artificial Burrow and Exclusion
Plans of the CDFW 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl
Mitigation (CDFW, 2012).
d) Prior to the start of construction within City Creek, pre-
construction site clearing surveys will be conducted of the
project impact area within natural habitats. Any special status
ground-dwelling wildlife will be removed from the immediate
impact area and released in the nearby area.
e) Permanent impacts to RAFSS habitat from construction and
operation of the discharge including within City Creek channel
resulting from perennial flow shall require on-site replacement
or off-site compensation at a ratio of at least 3:1 in consultation
with CDFW and USFWS. Temporary impacts to RAFSS habitat
would be mitigated at a ratio of at least 1:1 in consultation with
CDFW and USFWS.
BIO-3: Disturbance to Santa Ana Sucker. The following measures
will reduce potential project-related impacts to avoid, minimize, and
compensate for impacts to Santa Ana sucker while contributing to the
long-term conservation of the species.
a) The diversion of wastewater flow to the new SNRC shall not
occur until either the Upper Santa Ana HCP has been fully
executed by the USFWS and CDFW or Valley District’s SAS
HMMP has been approved by the USFWS and CDFW.
b) The Valley District will be a signatory to the Upper SAR HCP
that will include the proposed project as a covered activity. The
HCP will include a menu of projects to be implemented by the
signatory agencies that will create habitat, restore habitat, and
establish self-sustaining populations in the watershed. The
HCP will be approved by the CDFW and USFWS.
c) In the event that the Upper Santa Ana River HCP is not
approved in time to meet the project schedule, Valley District
shall prepare and implement a SAS Habitat Monitoring and
Management Plan (HMMP) that identifies habitat improvement
actions, implementation methods, monitoring, and
maintenance methods. The HMMP will consist of measures
listed below to offset direct and indirect impacts to the Santa
Ana sucker and its habitat resulting from the loss of 6 MGD of
discharged water. The HMMP will be implemented by a
contracted, qualified and permitted entity such as the
Riverside-Corona Resource Conservation District (RCRCD) in
coordination with the USFWS and CDFW. The HMMP will
Sterling Natural Resource Center 12-7 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
12. Clarifications and Modifications
Impacts Mitigation Measures
Significance before
Mitigation
Significance if Mitigation
is Implemented
identify the goals and performance criteria of each
conservation measure and will identify annual reporting and
work forecasting requirements. The HMMP will be approved by
the USFWS and CDFW under their authority to enforce the
federal and state Endangered Species Acts. The proposed
diversion of 6 MGD from the RIX discharge will not occur until
the HMMP has been approved by USFWS and CDFW. The
HMMP will include the following elements.
• SAS -1: Microhabitat Enhancements. The HMMP will
identify microhabitat enhancements within the upstream
reach of the affected river segment using natural materials
to increase scour and pool formation. This could include
placement of large boulders and/or large woody debris to
increase velocity of flow and gravel bar patches as well as
deep pool refugia areas.
• SAS -2: Aquatic Predator Control Program. The HMMP
will include an Aquatic Predator Control Program to be
implemented within the upstream reach of the affected
river segment that will target and remove exotic fish,
amphibians, and reptiles immediately prior to the SAS
spawning season.
• SAS -3: Exotic Weed Management Program. The HMMP
will include an Exotic Weed Management Program
targeting the removal of non-native species such as
tamarisk, castor bean, tree of heaven, etc. The HMMP will
include an annual maintenance and performance goal for
non-native plant removal within the upper reach of the
affected river segment.
• SAS -4: High Flow Pulse Events. The HMMP will identify
means to create high flow pulse events as needed based
on substrate conditions, up to 2 times per year. The high
flow pulse events would be implemented through a
cooperative agreement with the City of San Bernardino
Municipal Water Department.
• SAS -5: Supplemental Water. Valley District will increase
habitat availability in Rialto Channel during the summer
months by providing cool supplemental water from nearby
groundwater source to lower the water temperature in this
tributary. Supplemental water will be added to the Rialto
Channel when water temperatures reach 85 degrees.
Supplemental water could be pumped groundwater or
other water source. The discharge into the Rialto Drain will
require a discharge permit from the Regional Water Quality
Control Board.
Sterling Natural Resource Center 12-8 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
12. Clarifications and Modifications
Impacts Mitigation Measures
Significance before
Mitigation
Significance if Mitigation
is Implemented
• SAS-6: Upper Watershed SAS Population
Establishment. The HMMP will outline a plan for
establishing a population of Santa Ana sucker in City
Creek, or other suitable watershed tributary, in coordination
with the Wildlife Agencies. The HMMP will identify
measures to directly increase the number of Santa Ana
sucker in the SAR population, increase the amount of
suitable and occupied habitat in this watershed, and
distribute the risk of a catastrophic event between multiple
locations. The HMMP will identify the goals and success
criteria of the establishment plan and will identify the
amount of financial assistance to be provided by Valley
District for the regionally-beneficial population
establishment program.
• SAS -7: Monitoring. The HMMP will outline a monitoring
program to collect hydrology data in the segment of river
between the RIX discharge and Mission Boulevard. The
data will include flow velocity and depth.
3.4-2: Construction of the project could result in
potential direct and indirect impacts to riparian
habitat and other sensitive natural communities
identified in local or regional plans, policies, and
regulations or by CDFW or USFWS.
BIO-4: Construction Best Management Practices. The Contractor
shall implement the following Best Management Practices during
construction of the pipeline and discharge structure adjacent to and
within City Creek to protect any adjacent sensitive natural
communities that provide habitat for special-status species.
a. The following water quality protection measures shall be
implemented during construction:
• Stationary engines, such as compressors, generators, light
plants, etc., shall have drip pans beneath them to prevent
any leakage from entering runoff or receiving waters.
• All construction equipment shall be inspected for leaks and
maintained regularly to avoid soil contamination. Leaks and
smears of petroleum products will be wiped clean prior to
use.
• Any grout waste or spills will be cleaned up immediately
and disposed of off-site.
• Spill kits capable of containing hazardous spills will be
stored on-site.
b. To prevent inadvertent entrapment of common and special-
status wildlife during construction, all excavated, steep-walled
holes or trenches more than two-feet deep shall be covered
with tarp, plywood or similar materials at the close of each
working day to prevent animals from being trapped. Ramps
may be constructed of earth fill or wooden planks within deep
walled trenches to allow for animals to escape, if necessary.
Significant Less than significant
Sterling Natural Resource Center 12-9 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
12. Clarifications and Modifications
Impacts Mitigation Measures
Significance before
Mitigation
Significance if Mitigation
is Implemented
Before such holes or trenches are backfilled, they should be
thoroughly inspected for trapped animals. If trapped wildlife are
observed, escape ramps or structures shall be installed
immediately to allow escape.
All construction pipes, culverts, or similar structures that are
stored at a construction site for one or more overnight periods
should be thoroughly inspected for burrowing owls and nesting
birds before the pipe is subsequently buried, capped, or
otherwise used or moved.
3.4-3: Construction of the project could result in a
substantial adverse effect on federally protected
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the CWA,
as well as wetland waters of the State regulated
by the RWQCB under the Porter-Cologne Act
and also CDFW under Section 1600 of CFG
Code, through direct removal of water and
hydrological interruption
None required Less than Significant Not Applicable
3.4-4: Construction of the project could result in
the interference with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or
with established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites.
BIO-5: To minimize potential construction-related project impacts to
avian species that may be nesting on or immediately adjacent to the
project area, the following measures will reduce any potential impact
to a less than significant level.
a. To avoid potential impacts to birds that may be nesting on or
immediately adjacent to the project area, construction of the
project should avoid the general avian breeding season of
February through August.
b. If construction must occur during the general avian breeding
season, a pre-construction clearance survey shall be
conducted within 30 days prior to the start of construction, to
determine if any active nests or sign of nesting activity is
located on or immediately adjacent to the project area,
specifically at the proposed SNRC location. An additional
survey shall be conducted within 3 days prior to the
commencement of construction activities. If no nesting activity
is observed during the pre-construction survey, construction
may commence without potential impacts to nesting birds.
c. If an active nest is observed a suitable buffer will be placed
around the nest, depending on sensitivity of the nesting
species, and onsite monitoring may be required during
construction to ensure no disturbance or take of the nest
occurs. Construction may continue in other areas of the project
and construction activities may only encroach within the buffer
at the discretion of the monitoring biologist. The buffer will
remain in place until the nestlings have fledged and the nest is
no longer considered active.
Significant Less than Significant
Sterling Natural Resource Center 12-10 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
12. Clarifications and Modifications
Impacts Mitigation Measures
Significance before
Mitigation
Significance if Mitigation
is Implemented
3.4-5: Construction of the project could conflict
with local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance.
None required Less than Significant Not Applicable
3.4-6: Construction of the project could conflict
with the provisions of an adopted HCP, NCCP, or
other approved local, regional, or state HCP.
None required Less than significant Not applicable
Cumulative Biological Resources Impacts Implement Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-5 Significant Significant and
unavoidable impacts to
SAS habitat
Cultural Resources
3.5-1: The project could have a significant impact
if it would cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a historical or archaeological
resource, as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section
15064.5.
CUL-1: Prior to the start of ground-disturbing activities, Valley District
shall retain a qualified archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the
Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for archaeology (U.S.
Department of the Interior 2008) to carry out all mitigation related to
cultural resources. The qualified archaeologist shall conduct a Phase
I survey for all areas within the project impact area that have not
received a survey within the last five years, including treated
conveyance pipeline corridors.
CUL-2: Prior to start of ground-disturbing activities, the qualified
archaeologist shall conduct cultural resources sensitivity training for
all construction personnel. Construction personnel shall be informed
of the types of archaeological resources that may be encountered,
and of the proper procedures to be enacted in the event of an
inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources or human remains.
Valley District shall ensure that construction personnel are made
available for and attend the training and retain documentation
demonstrating attendance.
CUL-3: In the event of the unanticipated discovery of archaeological
materials, Valley District shall immediately cease all work activities
within approximately 100 feet of the discovery until it can be
evaluated by the qualified archaeologist. Construction shall not
resume until the qualified archaeologist has conferred with Valley
District on the significance of the resource.
If it is determined that a discovered archaeological resource
constitutes a historic property under the NHPA or a historical or
unique archaeological resource under CEQA, avoidance and
preservation in place is the preferred manner of mitigation.
Preservation in place maintains the important relationship between
artifacts and their archaeological context and also serves to avoid
conflict with traditional and religious values of groups who may
ascribe meaning to the resource. Preservation in place may be
accomplished by, but is not limited to, avoidance, incorporating the
Significant Less than Significant
Sterling Natural Resource Center 12-11 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
12. Clarifications and Modifications
Impacts Mitigation Measures
Significance before
Mitigation
Significance if Mitigation
is Implemented
resource into open space, capping, or deeding the site into a
permanent conservation easement. In the event that preservation in
place is demonstrated to be infeasible and data recovery through
excavation is the only feasible mitigation available, a Treatment Plan
shall be prepared and implemented by a qualified archaeologist in
consultation with Valley District that provides for the adequate
recovery of the scientifically consequential information contained in
the archaeological resource. Valley District shall consult with
appropriate Native American representatives in determining
treatment for prehistoric or Native American resources to ensure
cultural values ascribed to the resource, beyond that which is
scientifically important, are considered.
3.5-2: The project could have a significant impact
if it would directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature.
CUL-4: Paleontological resources monitoring shall be conducted for
the proposed SNRC in areas that are subject to excavations in
excess of 15 feet below ground surface. Paleontological monitoring
shall be conducted by a qualified paleontological monitor (QPM). The
QPM, in consultation with the Valley District, may reduce or increase
monitoring based on observations of subsurface soil stratigraphy or
other factors. If construction or other project personnel discover any
potential fossils during construction, regardless of the depth of work,
work at the discovery location shall cease within 50 feet of the find
until the QPM has assessed the discovery and made
recommendations as to the appropriate treatment.
Significant Less than significant
3.5-3: The project could have a significant impact
if it would disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of formal cemeteries.
CUL-5: If human remains are encountered, Valley District shall halt
work within 100 feet of the find and contact the San Bernardino
County Coroner in accordance with PRC Section 5097.98 and Health
and Safety Code Section 7050.5. If the County Coroner determines
that the remains are Native American, the NAHC shall be notified in
accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, subdivision
(c), and PRC Section 5097.98 (as amended by Assembly Bill 2641).
The NAHC shall designate a MLD for the remains per PRC Section
5097.98. Until the landowner has conferred with the MLD, Valley
District shall ensure that the immediate vicinity where the discovery
occurred is not disturbed by further activity, is adequately protected
according to generally accepted cultural or archaeological standards
or practices, and that further activities take into account the possibility
of multiple burials.
Less than Significant Not Applicable
3.5-4: The project could have a significant impact
if it would cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a tribal cultural resource as
defined in Public Resources Code 21074.
CUL-1, CUL-2, CUL-3, CUL-5 Significant Less than significant
Sterling Natural Resource Center 12-12 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
12. Clarifications and Modifications
Impacts Mitigation Measures
Significance before
Mitigation
Significance if Mitigation
is Implemented
Geologic and Mineral Resources
3.6-1: The proposed project would not expose
people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury
or death involving rupture of a known earthquake
fault; strong seismic ground shaking; or seismic-
related ground failure, including liquefaction or
landslides.
None required Less than significant Not applicable
3.6-2: The proposed project would not result in
substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil.
None required Less than significant Not applicable
3.6-3: The proposed project would not be located
on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable or that
would become unstable as a result of the proposed
project and potentially result in on-or off-site
landslide, subsidence, or collapse.
None required Less than significant Not applicable
3.6-4: The proposed project would not be located
on problematic soils such as those characterized
as expansive, as defined in 24 CCR 1803.5.3 of
the California Building Code (2013), or corrosive.
None required Less than significant Not applicable
3.6-5: The proposed project would not have soils
incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal
systems where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water.
None required No Impact Not applicable
3.6-6: The proposed project would not result in
the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and
residents of the state or result in the loss of
availability of a locally important mineral
resources recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land use plan.
None required Less than significant Not applicable
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
3.7-1: The proposed project could generate GHG
emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may
have a significant impact on the environment.
None required Less than significant Not applicable
3.7-2: The proposed project could conflict with
any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an
agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of GHGs.
None required Less than significant Not applicable
Sterling Natural Resource Center 12-13 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
12. Clarifications and Modifications
Impacts Mitigation Measures
Significance before
Mitigation
Significance if Mitigation
is Implemented
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
3.8-1: The project could create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment through
the routine transport, use, or disposal of, or
through foreseeable upset and accident
conditions involving hazardous materials.
None required Less than significant Not applicable
3.8-2: The proposed project could not result in
hazardous emission or the handling of hazardous
or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school.
None required Less than Significant Not applicable
3.8-3: The project would not be located on a site
that is included on a list of hazardous materials
sites compiled pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would not
create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment.
None required Less than significant Not applicable
3.8-4: The project would be located within an
area covered by an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2
miles of a public airport or public use airport, and
could result in a safety hazard for people residing
or working in the project area.
None required No Impact Not applicable
3.8-5: The project would not be located within the
vicinity of a private airstrip and would not result in
a safety hazard for people residing or working in
the project area.
None required No Impact Not applicable
3.8-6: The project would not impair
implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan.
None required Less than significant Not applicable
3.8-7: The project could expose people or
structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or
death involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or
where residences are intermixed with wildlands.
None required Less than significant Not applicable
Hydrology and Water Quality
3.9-1: The project could violate water quality
standards or waste discharge requirements, or
otherwise substantially degrade water quality.
HYDRO-1: Valley District will prepare a Water Quality Management
Plan (WQMP) to ensure that the SNRC facility design complies with
stormwater management goals of the MS4.
Significant Less than Significant
Sterling Natural Resource Center 12-14 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
12. Clarifications and Modifications
Impacts Mitigation Measures
Significance before
Mitigation
Significance if Mitigation
is Implemented
HYDRO-2: Valley District shall prepare and implement a
groundwater monitoring program that includes installation of an array
of groundwater monitoring wells sufficient to characterize the effects
of the discharge on local groundwater quality. If monitoring shows
that beneficial uses of the groundwater may become adversely
affected by the discharge, the monitoring program would require
either modifications to treatment, modify the well screened area by
sealing the affected portion of the screen in the impacted
groundwater bearing zone, or compensation for adversely affected
groundwater wells through replacement of the affected well or
through providing replacement water.
3.9-2: The project could substantially deplete
groundwater supplies or interfere substantially
with groundwater recharge such that there would
be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of
the local groundwater table.
None required Less than Significant Not applicable
3.9-3: The project could substantially alter the
existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion, siltation or flooding on- or
offsite.
HYDRO-3: The City Creek discharge structures shall be designed
with velocity dissipation features as needed to prevent scour at the
point of discharge. The design and location of these discharge
facilities would be approved by the SBCFCD and USACE to ensure
that they do not impede high flow capacity.
HYDRO-4: Valley District shall prepare a City Creek Channel
Vegetation Management Plan in coordination with SBCFCD and
CDFW that outlines vegetation management measures to minimize
impacts to the flood control function within City Creek. The plan will
include periodic vegetation trimming to remove large trees that could
impact flood control facilities downstream. The plan will outline
schedule, permitting and reporting requirements.
Significant Less than significant
3.9-4: The project would create or contribute
runoff water which could exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater drainage systems
or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff.
HYDRO-5: Valley District shall prepare an Operational Manual for the
discharge to City Creek that identifies when discharges would be
conveyed to other discharge basins to avoid contributing to flood
flows in City Creek during peak flow periods.
Significant Less than significant
3.9-5: The project would not place housing within
a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a
federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard
delineation map.
None required No Impact Not applicable
3.9-6: The project would not expose people or
structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving flooding, including flooding as a
result of the failure of a levee or dam.
None required Less than Significant Not applicable
Sterling Natural Resource Center 12-15 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
12. Clarifications and Modifications
Impacts Mitigation Measures
Significance before
Mitigation
Significance if Mitigation
is Implemented
3.9-7: The project would not place structures
within a 100-year flood hazard area structures
which would impede or redirect flood flows.
HYDRO-3 Significant Less than Significant with
Mitigation
3.9-8: The project would not result in inundation
by seiche, tsunami or mudflow.
None required No Impact Not applicable
3.9-9: The change in the point of discharge would
not adversely affect downstream beneficial uses
including water rights or conflict with the
Stipulated Judgment requiring minimum flows for
downstream diverters.
None required Less than significant Not applicable
Land Use and Agriculture
3.10-1: The project would not physically divide an
established community.
None required No Impact Not applicable
3.10-2: The project could conflict with applicable
land use plans, policies, or regulations of an
agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general plan,
specific plan, or zoning ordinance) adopted for
the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect.
None required Less than Significant Not applicable
3.10-3: The project would not conflict with a
habitat conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan.
None required Less than Significant Not applicable
Noise
3.11-1: The proposed project could result in
exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise
levels in excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies.
NOISE-1: Valley District shall implement the following measures
during construction:
• Include design measures necessary to reduce construction
noise levels to com ply with local noise ordinances. These
measures may include noise barriers, curtains, or shields.
• Place noise-generating construction activities (e.g., operation
of compressors and generators, cement mixing, general truck
idling) away from the nearest noise-sensitive land uses.
• Contiguous properties shall be notified in advance of
construction activities. A contact name and number shall be
provided to contiguous properties to report excessive
construction noise.
NOISE-2: Noise-generating machinery at the proposed SNRC shall
be enclosed within structures that are designed with insulation
sufficient to comply with applicable nighttime noise standards at the
Significant Less than significant
Sterling Natural Resource Center 12-16 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
12. Clarifications and Modifications
Impacts Mitigation Measures
Significance before
Mitigation
Significance if Mitigation
is Implemented
facility fenceline.
NOISE-3: Valley District shall establish a 24-hour Hot-Line to serve
the local community. Valley District shall ensure that neighbor
concerns are investigated and addressed immediately. The Hot-Line
number shall be provided to the neighboring properties and be
posted conspicuously at the entrance to the facility.
3.11-2: The proposed program could result in
exposure of persons to, or generation of,
excessive groundborne vibration.
None required Less than significant Not applicable
3.11-3: The proposed program could result in a
substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project.
NOISE-2 and NOISE-3 Significant Less than significant
3.11-4: The proposed program could result in a
substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project.
NOISE-1 Significant Significant and
unavoidable
3.11-5: For a project located within an airport
land use plan area, or, where such a plan has not
been adopted, in an area within 2 miles of a
public airport or public use airport,
implementation of the proposed program could
expose people residing or working in the area to
excessive noise levels.
None required Less than significant Not applicable
3.11-6: For a project located in the vicinity of a
private airstrip, the proposed program could
expose people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels.
None required Less than significant Not applicable
Population, Housing, and Environmental Justice
3.12-1: The project would not induce population
growth in an area, either directly or indirectly.
None Available Significant Significant and
unavoidable
3.12-2: The project would not have a significant
impact if it would eliminate existing dwelling units.
None required No Impact Not applicable
3.12-3: The project would not displace substantial
numbers of existing housing or people,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere.
None required No Impact Not applicable
Sterling Natural Resource Center 12-17 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
12. Clarifications and Modifications
Impacts Mitigation Measures
Significance before
Mitigation
Significance if Mitigation
is Implemented
3.12-4: The project could significantly affect the
health or environment of minority or low income
populations disproportionately.
AES -1. AIR-2, NOISE – 1, NOISE-2, TR-1 Significant Less than Significant
Public Services, Utilities, and Energy
3.13-1: The project would not result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or physically
altered government facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services: fire
protection, police protection, schools, parks, or
other public facilities.
None required Less than Significant Not applicable
3.13-2: The project would have a significant
impact if it would exceed wastewater treatment
requirements of the applicable Regional Water
Quality Control Board.
None required Less than significant Not applicable
3.13-3: The project would not require or result in
the construction of new water or wastewater
treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects.
None required Less than significant Not applicable
3.13-4: The project would have a significant
impact if it would require or result in the
construction of new storm water drainage
facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects.
None required Less than significant Not applicable
3.13-5: The project would have sufficient water
supplies available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources.
None required Less than significant Not applicable
3.13-6: The project would not result in a
determination by the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may serve the project
that it does not have adequate capacity to serve
the project’s projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments.
None required Less than significant Not applicable
Sterling Natural Resource Center 12-18 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
12. Clarifications and Modifications
Impacts Mitigation Measures
Significance before
Mitigation
Significance if Mitigation
is Implemented
3.13-7: The project would be served by a landfill
with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal
needs.
None required Less than significant Not applicable
3.13-8: The project would comply with federal,
state, and local statutes and regulations related
to solid waste.
None required Less than significant Not applicable
3.13-9: The project could encounter buried
utilities.
UTIL-1: During design and prior to construction, Valley District shall
verify the nature and location of underground utilities before the start
of any construction that would require excavation. Valley District shall
notify and coordinate with public and private utility providers at least
48 hours before the commencement of work adjacent to any located
utility. The contractor shall be required to notify the service provider
in advance of service interruptions to allow the service provider
sufficient time to notify customers. The contractor shall be required to
coordinate timing of interruptions with the service providers to
minimize the frequency and duration of interruptions.
Significant Less than Significant with
Mitigation
3.13-10: Operation of the proposed project would
require additional power that could affect local
and regional energy supplies.
UTIL-2: Valley District shall require the use of energy efficient
equipment, including but not limited to, pumps, conveyance features,
and lighting for the proposed SNRC and pump stations.
Significant Less than Significant with
Mitigation
Recreation
3.14-1: The project would not increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities, such that substantial
deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated.
None required Less than Significant Not applicable
3.14-2: The project would not include recreational
facilities or require the construction or expansion
of recreational facilities which might have an
adverse physical impact on the environment.
None required No Impact Not applicable
Transportation and Circulation
3.15-1: The project would result in increases in
vehicle trips by construction workers, facility
operators, haul trucks, and deliveries that could
conflict with applicable plans and policies
regarding the effectiveness of the circulation
system.
Mitigation Measure TR-1: Valley District shall require the contractor
to prepare a traffic control plan that identifies specific traffic control
measures to ensure access and safety on the local roadway network.
The traffic control plan will include the following elements at a
minimum:
• A schedule of lane closures and road closures over the
construction period
• Measures to maintain traffic flow at all times across the
construction zone including requiring flaggers to direct traffic
Significant Less than significant
Sterling Natural Resource Center 12-19 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
12. Clarifications and Modifications
Impacts Mitigation Measures
Significance before
Mitigation
Significance if Mitigation
is Implemented
when only one lane of traffic is available
• Detour routes and notification procedures if full road closures
are needed
• Lane closure notifications to the City of Highland, City of San
Bernardino and City of Redlands and local emergency services
providers
• Temporary signalization modifications (if any) for intersection
signals
• On-road traffic control features and signage compliant with city
traffic control requirements
• Maintain access to residence and business driveways, public
facilities, and recreational resources at all times to the extent
feasible; Minimize access disruptions to businesses and
residences
• Include the requirement that all open trenches be covered with
metal plates at the end of each workday to accommodate
traffic and access
• Identify all roadway locations where special construction
techniques (e.g., horizontal boring, directional drilling or night
construction) will be used to minimize impacts to traffic flow
Mitigation Measure TR-2: Valley District shall prepare a notification
plan for communication with affected residents and businesses prior
to the start of construction. Advance public notification shall include
posting of notices and appropriate signage of construction activities.
The written notification shall include the construction schedule, the
exact location and duration of activities within each street (i.e., which
lanes and access point/driveways would be blocked on which days
and for how long), and a toll-free telephone number for receiving
questions or complaints.
Mitigation Measure TR-3: Prior to installation of pipelines in East 5th
Street, Valley District shall coordinate with the City of Highland to
ensure that the proposed East 5th Street curb and drainage
improvements are conducted simultaneously with the pipeline
installation to avoid impacting the street twice in a short period of
time.
Mitigation Measure TR-4: Valley District shall ensure that deliveries,
biosolids haul trips, and worker shift transitions are discouraged
during the period of 7:30 to 8:30 AM and 2:30 to 3:30 PM
corresponding to peak pick up and drop off times at the high school.
Mitigation Measure TR-5: Valley District shall design turn-in and
turn-out ramps adjacent to 5th Street to accommodate solids haul
trips and material deliveries ingress and egress in a manner that
ensures safe traffic conditions. Roadway improvements including
Sterling Natural Resource Center 12-20 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
12. Clarifications and Modifications
Impacts Mitigation Measures
Significance before
Mitigation
Significance if Mitigation
is Implemented
modifications to the curb shall be approved by the City of Highland
Department of Transportation.
3.15-2: The project would not result in a change
in air traffic patterns, including either an increase
in traffic levels or a change in location that results
in substantial safety risks.
None required No Impact Not applicable
3.15-3: The project would not result in a
substantial increase in hazards due to a design
feature or incompatible uses.
TR-4 Significant Less than Significant
3.13-4: The project would not result in inadequate
emergency access.
TR-1 Significant Less than significant
3.13-5: The project would not conflict with
adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding
public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities.
None required Less than Significant Not applicable
Secondary Effects of Growth
The project would remove an obstacle to growth None required Significant Significant and
unavoidable
Cumulative Secondary Growth None required Significant Significant and
unavoidable
Sterling Natural Resource Center 12-21 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
12. Clarifications and Modifications
Section Chapter 1, Introduction
Page Clarification/Revision
1-2 The following modifications to text have been corrected in, Introduction as
shown below.
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District
Valley District was formed in 1954 as a regional water supply agency with a
service area that covers about 353 square miles in southwestern San Bernardino
County and a population of about 660,000. Its enabling act includes a broad
range of powers to provide water, groundwater replenishment, storm water and
wastewater treatment and disposal, recreation, and fire protection services.
Valley District is a water wholesaler, delivering imported and local water
supplies to local water retailers. Valley District contracts with the State Water
Project (SWP) to provide imported water to the region and also manages
groundwater storage within its boundaries, which include the cities and
communities of San Bernardino, Colton, Loma Linda, Redlands, Rialto,
Bloomington, Highland, East Highland, Mentone, Grand Terrace, and Yucaipa.
East Valley Water District
EVWD was formed in 1954 to provide domestic water service to the
unincorporated and agricultural-based communities of Highland and East
Highlands, which were incorporated in 1987 as the City of Highland. Today,
EVWD primarily serves the City of Highland. As the population of the area has
increased, these agricultural demands have been replaced by municipal demands.
EVWD has built a water system to meet the growing municipal demands and
currently serves a population of approximately 101,000. EVWD delivers 18
million gallons per day (MGD) of potable water from three sources: Bunker Hill
Groundwater Basin provides 90 percent, Santa Ana River (SAR) water provides
9 percent, and SWP water provides 1 percent.
1-5 Figure 1-2 was revised to include labels that identified the proposed project
components.
Sterling Natural Resource Center 12-22 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
^_
RIX Facility
Treated Water Conveyance Pipeline
City Creek Extension
Force Main
SBWRP Bypass
SBWRP Existing Discharge
SAR Pipeline
Treated Water Conveyance Pipeline
S a n ta A n a R i v e r
BUNKER HILL BASIN
SanBernardino
Redlands
UV210
§¨¦15
§¨¦215
§¨¦10
UV210
Sterling Natural Resour ce Center . 150005Figure 1-2Bunker Hill Groundwater Basin
SOURCE: ESRI
12. Clarifications and Modifications
Section Chapter 2, Project Description
Page Clarification/Revision
2-11 Information in regards to the processing of biosolids at RIX facility was
corrected to identify the SBWRP instead. The correct text has been updated in
Chapter 2, Project Description, as shown below.
Biosolids Dewatering and Offloading
Screw presses would be employed for biosolids dewatering. Biosolids, would be
hauled offsite either to soil augmentation reuse facilities or to a landfill such as
the San Timoteo Landfill for disposal. An offloading facility would be
constructed that would convey treated biosolids onto haul trucks. The facility
would generate less than five biosolids haul trucks per day on average. The San
Timoteo landfill is located approximately 7 miles from the SNRC. Biosolids
reuse opportunities such as land application may be utilized in the San Joaquin
Valley or Arizona. Truck trips up to 250 miles to Kings County or 300 miles to
Arizona may be necessary. Biosolids are currently processed at the SBWRP and
reused for composting. This is consistent with current biosolids reuse and
disposal activities from the RIX facility.
2-16 Figure 2-5 did not show the entire route of the proposed City Creek pipeline and
the proposed discharge structure location. It has been modified to show that the
treated water conveyance alternative would traverse City Creek in order to
discharge to the creek from the eastern edge.
2-33 Table 2-8 did not include the amount of biosolids removal trips mentioned in the
text 8. The table and text has been corrected as shown below.
As shown in Table 2-8 below, it is anticipated that one truck trip per week would
be required for screenings removal and one trip per week for grit removal, for a
total of 104 truck trips per year. Dewatered biosolids are expected to be hauled
offsite daily, and it is estimated that there would be 600 truck trips per year.
These operational tasks would contribute approximately 720 truck trips per year.
TABLE 2-8
OPERATIONAL TRUCK TRIPS
Purpose Number of Truck Trips per Year
Chemical Deliveries 14
Screenings and Grit Disposal 104
Biosolids Removal
Total
600
718 (say 720)
Source: Valley District, 2015
Sterling Natural Resource Center 12-24 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
!(
EAST 5TH ST
EAST 6TH ST
BASELINE ST
§¨¦210
PA
L
M
A
V
E
AL
A
B
A
M
A
S
T
CH
U
R
C
H
A
V
E
GREENSPOT RD
PERIMETER RD
WE
B
S
T
E
R
S
T
Sterling Natural Resource Center . 150005Figure 2-5
Treated Water Conveyance System Pipelines
SOURCE: ESRI; San Bernardino County GIS
Redlands Basins
Sterling NaturalResource Center
Discharge LocationOption 1
12. Clarifications and Modifications
2-34 Table 2-9 has been modified to include that the use of the supplemental water
wells which would require a low-threat discharge permit from the RWQCB.
Valley District would be subject to groundwater quality monitoring imposed by
the permit.
TABLE 2-9
DISCRETIONARY PERMITS POTENTIALLY REQUIRED
Agency
Permits and
Authorizations Potentially Required
Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB) • National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) for
discharge to City Creek
• Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) for groundwater
replenishment reuse projects under California Title 22
• SWPPP for inclusion in General Stormwater NPDES Permit for
Construction Activities
• General Stormwater NPDES for Industrial Facilities
• Low Threat Discharge NPDES for supplemental water discharges
• 401 Water Quality Certification;
State Water Resources Control Board • California Water Code Section 1211 Change in Point of
Discharge
SBCFCD • Encroachment permit for discharge facilities
• Easement, and/or license agreement for use of recharge facilities
South Coast Air Quality Management District
(SCAQMD) • Permit to operate treatment facility
• Permits to operate cogeneration facility and emergency
generators
East Valley Water District • Approval to modify collection system
City of Highland • Encroachment permit for construction in roadways
• Department review permit for Administration Center
City of Redlands • Encroachment permit for construction in roadways
• Approval for use of Redlands Basins
City of San Bernardino • Encroachment permit for construction in roadways
• Approval to re-purpose SAR Pipeline
City of Rialto • Approval for use of groundwater wells.
Caltrans • Encroachment permit for construction in roadways and
undercrossings
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers • Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit
• 408 Permit (if necessary)
California Department of Fish and Wildlife • Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement
• Endangered Species Act compliance 2081
US Fish and Wildlife Service • Endangered Species Act compliance Section 7/Section 10
Federal Aviation Administration • Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration
Sterling Natural Resource Center 12-26 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
12. Clarifications and Modifications
Section 3.3 Air Quality
Page Clarification/Revision
3.3-13 Text that referenced “City of San Highland” included a typographical error and
all text that mentioned it were corrected to “City of Highland” The following
modifications have been made in the Air Quality section.
City of Highland General Plan
The City of San Highland General Plan Air Quality Element contains various
policies to address citywide air quality issues. The following are relevant to the
proposed project:
3.3-14 A similar typographical error about the City of Highland was identified in the Air
Quality section. The following modifications have been made:
City of Redlands General Plan
The City of San Highland Redlands General Plan Air Quality Element contains
various policies to address citywide air quality issues. The following are relevant
to the proposed project:
3.3-27 The following modifications have been made to Table 3.3-10 to demonstrate
more accurate operational emissions. Refer to Appendix B for more details.
TABLE 3.3-10 REVISED
PROPOSED PROJECT UNMITIGATED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
Emissions Source
Estimated Emissions (lbs./day)
ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Administration Center
Area Sources 1.45 0.0001 0.013 0.00 0.00005 0.00005
Energy Sources (Natural Gas) 0.003 0.02 0.02 0.0002 0.002 0.002
Mobile Sources 1.03 3.28 12.06 0.03 1.92 0.54
Subtotal 2.49 3.30 12.10 0.03 1.93 0.54
SNRC
Area Sources 1.09 0.00004 0.004 0.00 0.00002 0.00002
Cogeneration System Emissions 0.57 15.63 1.66 0.64 1.17 1.13
Mobile - Employee Vehicles 0.07 0.09 1.09 0.003 0.23 0.06
Mobile – Trucks 0.08 2.402.30 0.460.44 0.006 0.07 0.050.04
Subtotal 1.80 18.102 3.223.20 0.64 1.47 1.241.23
Total Emissions 4.304.29 21.4221.43 15.3215.30 0.67 3.40 1.78
Regional Significance Threshold 55 55 550 150 100 55
Significant Impact? No No No No No No
NOTE: See Appendix B for CalEEMod model outputs.
Sterling Natural Resource Center 12-27 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
12. Clarifications and Modifications
3.3-28 The following modifications have been made to Table 3.3-11 to demonstrate
more accurate operational emissions. Refer to Appendix B for more details.
TABLE 3.3-11 REVISED
ANNUAL UNMITIGATED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
Emissions Source
Estimated Emissions (tons/year)
ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Administration Center
Area Sources 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Energy Sources (Natural Gas) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mobile Sources 0.13 0.46 1.60 0.00 0.26 0.07
Subtotal 0.40 0.47 1.60 0.00 0.26 0.07
SNRC
Area Sources 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Cogeneration System Emissions 0.10 2.85 0.30 0.12 0.21 0.21
Mobile - Employee Vehicles 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mobile – Trucks 0.02 0.440.43 0.080.21 0.00 0.010.04 0.010.02
Subtotal 0.32 3.293.28 0.380.51 0.12 0.220.26 0.22
Total Emissions 0.72 3.763.75 1.922.11 0.12 0.490.52 0.290.30
Regional Significance Threshold 10 10 100 100 70 100
Significant Impact? No No No No No No
NOTE: See Appendix B for CalEEMod model outputs.
Section 3.4 Biological Resources
Page Clarification/Revision
3.4-23
TABLE 3.4-4
POTENTIALLY OCCURRING SENSITIVE WILDLIFE SPECIES
Common and Scientific
Name
Status1
(Federal/State/
CNDDB) Habitat
Potential to Occur in Project
Impact Area
Arroyo chub
Gila orcutti
FSC/SSC/S2 Los Angeles Basin south coastal
streams. Slow water stream
sections with mud or sand
bottoms.
HighMedium. Suitable habitat for
this species is present in the
Santa Ana River and throughout
much of City Creek within the
project area when water is
present.
3.4-32 Figure 3.4-2 was revised to include the critical habitat of the southwestern willow
flycatcher.
Sterling Natural Resource Center 12-28 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
!(")
")
Sterling NaturalResource Center
Treated WaterPump Station
Redlands Basins
Treated Water Force Main
City Creek Extension
Lift Station
Force Main
Lift Station
§¨¦10 §¨¦10
§¨¦215
§¨¦215
Treated Water Conveyance Pipeline
East Twin Creek Spreading Grounds
SAR Pipeline
SBWRP Bypass
SBWRP Existing Discharge
UV210
SAN BERNARDINO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
Sterling Natural Resour ce Center . 150005Figure 3.4-2Critical Habitat
SOURCE: ESRI; USFWS
Critical HabitatSan Bernardino Merriam's kangaroo ratSanta Ana suckerSouthwestern willow flycatcher
0 8,000
Feet
12. Clarifications and Modifications
3.4-45 The second paragraph on page 3.4-45 has been modified to accurately reflect the
Reduced Discharge conclusions and to be consistent with the summary on page
3.4-48 as shown below.
The reduction of discharge from RIX will reduce water currently supporting
riparian habitats in the Santa Ana River below the RIX discharge point. The
reduced discharge study conducted by ESA for the project (ESA 2015b)
determined that the diversion of 6 MGD of water from the Santa Ana River will
not significantly change the existing conditions within the river pertaining to
flow, velocity and sedimentation. As noted on page 8 of the reduced discharge
study (Appendix F), the reduction of 6 MGD from the RIX discharge would
reduce water depth in the channel a maximum of approximately 1.1 inch, reduce
the wetted area by 6 percent, and result in an average change in a velocity class
of 2 percent (not exceeding 6 percent) of the total channel area. (See Appendix F)
and would alter existing flow velocities on average by two percent. This would
reduce wetted area by three percent within the upper reach of the reduced
discharge study area. The stream width would be reduced by three 6 percent, but
the riparian vegetation would continue to encroach and hang over the stream
channel as under existing conditions. The small reduction in wetted area in the
river channel would not significantly affect the vitality of the riparian corridor
currently supported by the perennial surface water discharge.
3.4-54 Text has been added regarding the critical habitat and Primary Constituent
Estimates for the southwestern willow flycatcher as shown below.
Operational Impacts
USFW designated critical habitat for southwestern Willow Flycatcher is located
within the floodplains of City Creek (refer to Figure 3.4-2). The designation
published in the Federal Register on January 3, 2013, lists Primary Constituent
Elements (PCE) for the southwestern Willow Flycatcher as follows:
1. Riparian vegetation along a dynamic river or lakeside that is comprised of
trees and shrubs with some combination of:
a. Dense trees and shrubs that can range in height from 2 to 30 meters
b. Areas of dense riparian understory foliage at least from the ground level
up to approximately 13 feet.
c. Sites for nesting that contain a dense tree and/or shrub canopy
d. Dense patches of riparian forests that are interspersed with small
openings of open water or marsh
2. Insect Prey Populations
The operational requirements of the project will divert 6 MGD of recycled water
that would have been discharged into the Santa Ana River from the RIX facility,
and discharge that water into City Creek northeast of the project area, Redlands
Sterling Natural Resource Center 12-30 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
12. Clarifications and Modifications
Basins, and/or the East Twin Creek Spreading Grounds. The reduction in flow of
6 MGD would not result in a substantial decrease in riparian cover that would
restrict the primary constituent elements identified by USFWS for southwestern
willow flycatcher including dense understory and insect populations. Sufficient
volumes of water would remain in the river channel to support the riparian
habitat similar to existing conditions. Furthermore, implementation of Mitigation
Measure BIO-3 would provide for management of the riparian habitat including
the removal of invasive weeds including arundo donax which would increase the
acreage of native riparian vegetation compared with existing conditions, as native
willows emerge in areas where arundo donax has been removed. Additionally,
the discharge of water into City Creek or other basins by the proposed project
will support the growth of riparian habitat at those locations. Therefore, there will
be no adverse modification of Critical Habitat as a result of the operational
requirements of the project.
3.4-55 Mitigation for sensitive plants will be conducted in consultation with the wildlife
agencies either through the Endangered Species Act or other permitting
mechanisms such as streambed alteration agreement for non-listed species. The
DEIR does not rely on the adoption of the Upper SAR HCP to mitigate impacts
to sensitive species in City Creek. Mitigation has been refined to require
replacement of permanently impacted RAFSS habitat at a ratio no less than 3:1 in
consultation with USFW and CDFW. The appropriate modifications to the
mitigation measure are shown below.
BIO-1: Disturbance to Special-Status Plants. The following measures will
reduce potential project-related impacts to special-status plant species that may
occur adjacent to the project site within City Creek to a less than significant
level. Potential project-related impacts may result from the construction of the
pipeline extension and discharge structure within City Creek, Redlands Basins,
and/or the East Twin Creek Spreading Grounds.
a. Prior to the start of construction within City Creek, Redlands Basins,
and/or the East Twin Creek Spreading Grounds, a focused botanical
survey will be conducted to determine the presence/absence of any of the
special-status species with a moderate or high potential to occur. The
focused botanical survey will be conducted by a botanist or qualified
biologist knowledgeable in the identification of local special-status plant
species, and according to accepted protocol outlined by the CNPS and/or
CDFW.
b. If a special status state or federally-listed plant species is discovered in a
project impact area, informal consultation with CDFW and/or USFWS
will be required prior to the impact occurring to develop an appropriate
avoidance strategy. Depending on the sensitivity of the species,
relocation, site restoration, or other habitat improvement actions may be
Sterling Natural Resource Center 12-31 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
12. Clarifications and Modifications
an acceptable option to avoid significant impacts, as determined through
consultation with the resource agencies.
c. If impact avoidance of a state or federally-listed species is not feasible,
Valley District shall quantify the impacted acreage supporting state or
federally-listed plant species within the construction area and estimated
perennial flow area and prepare a Biological Assessment pursuant to
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and Section 2081 of the State
Endangered Species Act. The Biological Assessment shall quantify
compensation requirements for affected plants species. Valley District
shall implement the conservation measures and compensation
requirements identified through consultation by USACE with both
CDFW and USFWS.
d. Permanent impacts to RAFSS habitat from construction and operation of
the discharge including within the City Creek channel resulting from
perennial flow shall require on-site replacement or off-site compensation
at a ratio of at least 3:1 in consultation with CDFW and USFWS.
Temporary impacts to RAFSS habitat would be mitigated at a ratio of at
least 1:1 in consultation with CDFW and USFWS.
3.4-56 The mitigation measure has been expanded to include pre-construction site
clearing surveys to remove special status wildlife species from the impact areas
prior to construction.
BIO-2: Disturbance to Special-Status Wildlife. The following measures will
reduce potential project-related impacts to special-status wildlife species that
may occur within disturbed and native habitats, to a less than significant level.
Potential project-related impacts may result from construction of the SNRC,
construction of the discharge structures within City Creek and other discharge
locations, and perennial discharges to City Creek or other discharge locations.
a. Prior to the start of construction within City Creek or other discharge
locations, Valley District shall conduct focused surveys within the
project impact areas to determine if any state or federally-listed wildlife
species (southwestern willow flycatcher, coastal California gnatcatcher,
San Bernardino kangaroo rat, and least Bell’s vireo) are located within
project impact areas. Focused surveys will be conducted by a qualified
and/or permitted biologist, following approved survey protocol. Survey
results will be forwarded to CDFW and USFWS. If state or federally-
listed species are determined to occur on the project site with the
potential to be impacted by the project, consultation with CDFW and/or
USFWS will be required.
b. If impact avoidance is not feasible, Valley District shall quantify the
impacted acreage supporting state or federally-listed wildlife species
within the construction area and estimated perennial flow area and
Sterling Natural Resource Center 12-32 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
12. Clarifications and Modifications
prepare a Biological Assessment pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act and Section 2081 of the State Endangered Species Act. The
Biological Assessment shall quantify compensation requirements for
affected wildlife species. Valley District shall implement the
conservation measures and compensation requirements identified
through consultation by USACE with both CDFW and USFWS.
c. Prior to the start of construction of the SNRC building and the recycled
water pipeline along 6th Street, focused burrowing owl surveys shall be
conducted to determine the presence/absence of burrowing owl adjacent
to the project area. The focused burrowing owl survey must be conducted
by a qualified biologist and following the survey guidelines included in
the CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012). If
burrowing owl is observed within undeveloped habitat within or
immediately adjacent to the project impact area, avoidance/minimization
measures would be required such as establishing a suitable buffer around
the nest (typically 500-feet) and monitoring during construction, or
delaying construction until after the nest is no longer active and the
burrowing owls have left. However, if burrowing owl avoidance is
infeasible, a qualified biologist shall implement a passive relocation
program in accordance with the Example Components for Burrowing
Owl Artificial Burrow and Exclusion Plans of the CDFW 2012 Staff
Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFW, 2012).
d. Prior to the start of construction within City Creek, pre-construction site
clearing surveys will be conducted of the project impact area within
natural habitats. Any special status ground-dwelling wildlife will be
removed from the immediate impact area and released in the nearby area.
e. Permanent impacts to RAFSS habitat from construction and operation of
the discharge including within City Creek channel resulting from
perennial flow shall require on-site replacement or off-site compensation
at a ratio of at least 3:1 in consultation with CDFW and USFWS.
Temporary impacts to RAFSS habitat would be mitigated at a ratio of at
least 1:1 in consultation with CDFW and USFWS.
3.4-57 The mitigation measure BIO-3 has been modified to include SAS-7 to include
hydrologic monitoring of the SAR below RIX to better understand the seasonal
and diurnal fluctuations in river flow.
BIO-3: Disturbance to Santa Ana Sucker
• SAS-7: Monitoring. The HMMP will outline a monitoring program to
collect hydrology data in the segment of river between the RIX discharge and
Mission Boulevard. The data will include flow velocity and depth.
Sterling Natural Resource Center 12-33 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
12. Clarifications and Modifications
3.4-62 The following mitigation measure has been modified to clarify that pre-
construction surveys will be conducted 30 days prior to commencement of
construction activities and again within 3 days of construction.
BIO-5: Disturbance to Nesting Birds. To minimize potential construction-
related project impacts to avian species that may be nesting on or immediately
adjacent to the project area, the following measures will reduce any potential
impact to a less than significant level.
a. To avoid potential impacts to birds that may be nesting on or
immediately adjacent to the project area, construction of the project
should avoid the general avian breeding season of February through
August.
b. If construction must occur during the general avian breeding season, a
pre-construction clearance survey shall be conducted within 30 days
prior to the start of construction, to determine if any active nests or sign
of nesting activity is located on or immediately adjacent to the project
area, specifically at the proposed SNRC location. An additional survey
shall be conducted within 3 days prior to the commencement of
construction activities. If no nesting activity is observed during the pre-
construction survey, construction may commence without potential
impacts to nesting birds.
c. If an active nest is observed a suitable buffer will be placed around the
nest, depending on sensitivity of the nesting species, and onsite
monitoring may be required during construction to ensure no disturbance
or take of the nest occurs. Construction may continue in other areas of
the project and construction activities may only encroach within the
buffer at the discretion of the monitoring biologist. The buffer will
remain in place until the nestlings have fledged and the nest is no longer
considered active.
Section 3.7 Greenhouse Gases
Page Clarification/Revision
3.7-13 The following modifications have been made to Table 3.7-2 to demonstrate the
estimated amount of greenhouse gas emissions from the proposed project using a
more accurate calculation of truck trips.
Sterling Natural Resource Center 12-34 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
12. Clarifications and Modifications
TABLE 3.7-2 REVISED
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION RELATED GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Emission Source
Proposed Program
Emissions CO2e (MT/yr)
Construction
Administration Center 139.86
Discharge Structures (3 total) 91.14
Pipelines 1,050.42
SNRC 1,268.61
Construction (Amortized over 30 years) 2,550.03
Total 85.00
Project Operational GHG Emissions:
Administration Center 423.88
SNRC:
Area Source 0.01
Worker Vehicle Emissions 24.44
Truck-Only Emissions 94.8490.89
Cogen 450.24
Electricity 5123.36
Total Operational: 6,116.786,112.82
TOTAL Project Construction and Operational GHG
Emissions: 6,201.786,197.82
NOTES: CO2e= carbon dioxide equivalent; MT/yr = metric tons per year; see Appendix E for
CalEEMod model outputs.
SOURCE: Modeling performed by ESA, 2015.
Section 3.14 Public Services, Utilities and Energy
Page Clarification/Revision
3.14-4 The text included an city that is not included within Valley District’s service so
East Highland was removed, as shown below.
Valley District covers about 353 square miles and serves a population of 660,000
in southwestern San Bernardino County; it includes the cities and communities of
San Bernardino, Colton, Loma Linda, Redlands, Rialto, Bloomington, Highland,
East Highland, Mentone, Grand Terrace, and Yucaipa (Valley District, 2015).
3.14-5 The LAFCO organization was incorrectly identified in the text. The correct
identification has been included in Section 3.14, Utilities and Service Systems, as
shown below.
The City of Redlands provides drinking water to the Redlands and Mentone
areas; the water utility service area generally coincides with the area designated
Sterling Natural Resource Center 12-35 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
12. Clarifications and Modifications
by the Local Agency Area Formation Commission (LAFCO) as the City and its
sphere of influence.
Section 3.15 Transportation and Traffic
Page Clarification/Revision
3.15-7 The text included the incorrect amount of biosolids trips for the facility. The
change shown below reflects the accurate number of trips.
Approximately 5An average of fewer than 2 biosolids haul trips per day would
be generated at the facility.
Section Chapter 4, Cumulative Impacts
Page Clarification/Revision
4-16 The following has been included in Chapter 4, Cumulative Impacts, to further
identify cumulative reductions in discharge.
The proposed project would contribute to the cumulative reduction in flows to
the SAR that reach Prado Dam and Orange County. As more recycled water
projects are implemented in the upper SAR watershed to support local water
supply development and sustainable groundwater management practices, less
surface water will reach the Prado Basin. However, pursuant to the 1969
Stipulated Judgment, minimum flows to Prado Dam will be maintained to ensure
that Orange County receives its appropriative water rights. The cumulative
reduction in surface water reaching Prado Dam would not significantly impact
local drainage patterns, floodplains, downstream water rights, or surface water or
groundwater quality. The cumulative reduction in surface water flows may result
in depletion of groundwater levels near Prado that are also subject to local
pumping. However, the proposed project would result in increased groundwater
levels in subbasins higher in the watershed. The proposed project would support
sustainable management of groundwater basins within the entire Upper Santa
Ana River Watershed as required under Sustainable Groundwater Management
Act and will assist in minimizing long-term cumulative impacts to groundwater.
Section Chapter 6, Alternatives
Page Clarification/Revision
6-7 The amount of alternatives, three, indicated was incorrect. The change has been
included in Chapter 6, Alternatives, as shown below.
Three Five alternatives were selected for detailed analysis. The goal for
evaluating these alternatives is to identify alternatives that would avoid or lessen
the significant environmental effects of the project, while attaining most of the
project objectives. Significant impacts of the project include construction air
Sterling Natural Resource Center 12-36 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
12. Clarifications and Modifications
emissions, construction noise, modification of Santa Ana sucker habitat, and
secondary effects of growth.
Staff Initiated Changes
Section 3.3 Air Quality
Page Clarification/Revision
3.3-23 In Chapter 3.3, the reference to Mitigation Measure AIR-1 was incorrectly
written as AQ-1. The change has been included in Chapter 3.3, Air Quality, as
shown below.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure AQAIR-1, which requires all off-road
construction equipment that exceeds 50 horsepower to be either certified as EPA
Tier 4where available, would reduce the pollutant emissions from the proposed
project’s construction equipment. The mitigated construction emissions for the
proposed project after implementation of Mitigation Measure AQAIR-1 are
shown in Table 3.3-7.
3.3-24 In Chapter 3.3, the reference to Mitigation Measure AIR-1 was incorrectly
written as AQ-1. The change has been included in Chapter 3.3, Air Quality, as
shown below.
As shown in Table 3.3-7, implementation of Mitigation Measure AQAIR-1
would reduce the pollutant emissions associated with the proposed project’s
construction activities.
3.3-25 In Chapter 3.3, the reference to Mitigation Measure AIR-1 was incorrectly
written as AQ-1. The change has been included in Chapter 3.3, Air Quality, as
shown below.
However, as shown in Table 3.3-9, with Mitigation Measure AQAIR-1 the
project’s construction emissions would be below the federal conformity de
minimis thresholds for all pollutants, including NOx.
Section 3.4 Biological Resources
Page Clarification/Revision
3.4-60 The mitigation measure formatting was corrected to maintain consistency with
the rest of the document as shown below:
BIO-4: Construction Best Management Practices. The contractor shall
implement the following Best Management Practices during construction of the
pipeline and discharge structure adjacent to and within City Creek to protect any
adjacent sensitive natural communities that provide habitat for special-status
species.
Sterling Natural Resource Center 12-37 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
12. Clarifications and Modifications
a. The following water quality protection measures shall be implemented
during construction. :
• Stationary engines, such as compressors, generators, light plants,
etc., shall have drip pans beneath them to prevent any leakage from
entering runoff or receiving waters.
• All construction equipment shall be inspected for leaks and
maintained regularly to avoid soil contamination. Leaks and smears
of petroleum products will be wiped clean prior to use.
• Any grout waste or spills will be cleaned up immediately and
disposed of off-site.
• Spill kits capable of containing hazardous spills will be stored on-
site.
b. To prevent inadvertent entrapment of common and special-status wildlife
during construction, all excavated, steep-walled holes or trenches more
than two-feet deep shall be covered with tarp, plywood or similar
materials at the close of each working day to prevent animals from being
trapped. Ramps may be constructed of earth fill or wooden planks within
deep walled trenches to allow for animals to escape, if necessary. Before
such holes or trenches are backfilled, they should be thoroughly
inspected for trapped animals. If trapped wildlife are observed, escape
ramps or structures shall be installed immediately to allow escape.
All construction pipes, culverts, or similar structures that are stored at a
construction site for one or more overnight periods should be thoroughly
inspected for burrowing owls and nesting birds before the pipe is
subsequently buried, capped, or otherwise used or moved.
Section 3.11 Noise
Page Clarification/Revision
3.11-19 The mitigation measure formatting was corrected to maintain consistency with
the rest of the document as shown below:
NOISE-1: Valley District shall implement the following measures during
construction:
a. Include design measures necessary to reduce construction noise levels to
comply with local noise ordinances. These measures may include noise
barriers, curtains, or shields.
b. Place noise-generating construction activities (e.g., operation of
compressors and generators, cement mixing, general truck idling) away
from the nearest noise-sensitive land uses.
Sterling Natural Resource Center 12-38 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
12. Clarifications and Modifications
c. Contiguous properties shall be notified in advance of construction
activities. A contact name and number shall be provided to contiguous
properties to report excessive construction noise.
Section 3.15 Traffic and Transportation
Page Clarification/Revision
3.15-8 The mitigation measure formatting was corrected to maintain consistency with
the rest of the document as shown below:
Mitigation Measure TR-1: Valley District shall require the contractor to prepare
a traffic control plan that identifies specific traffic control measures to ensure
access and safety on the local roadway network. The traffic control plan will
include the following elements at a minimum:
a. A schedule of lane closures and road closures over the construction period
b. Measures to maintain traffic flow at all times across the construction zone
including requiring flaggers to direct traffic when only one lane of traffic
is available
c. Detour routes and notification procedures if full road closures are needed
d. Lane closure notifications to the City of Highland, City of San Bernardino
and City of Redlands and local emergency services providers
e. Temporary signalization modifications (if any) for intersection signals
f. On-road traffic control features and signage compliant with city traffic
control requirements
g. Maintain access to residence and business driveways, public facilities, and
recreational resources at all times to the extent feasible; Minimize access
disruptions to businesses and residences
h. Include the requirement that all open trenches be covered with metal
plates at the end of each workday to accommodate traffic and access
i. Identify all roadway locations where special construction techniques (e.g.,
horizontal boring, directional drilling or night construction) will be used
to minimize impacts to traffic flow
Section Chapter 8, References
Page Clarification/Revision
N/A The following references have been added to support the FEIR:
Sterling Natural Resource Center 12-39 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
12. Clarifications and Modifications
California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Arroyo Chub, available online here:
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=104270&inlinehttps
://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=104270&inline,
accessed March 2016.
California Regional Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana Region, Item 10:
Renewal of Waste Discharge Requirements for City of San Bernardino
Municipal Water Department’s Water Reclamation Facility, Order No. R8-
2012-0051, December 14, 2012.
Chino Basin Watermaster, Depth to Groundwater Contours, available online at:
http://www.cbwm.org/rep_eng_maps.htm, July 2007.
East Valley Water District, Wastewater Collection System Master Plan, October
2013.
Hupp, Cliff R., W.R. Osterkamp, Riparian vegetation and fluvial geomorphic
processes, received January 1994; accepted November 1994.
Jericho Systems Incorporated, Habitat Suitability Assessments San Bernardino
Kangaroo Rat and Burrowing Owl East Valley Water District’s Del Rosa
Avenue Treatment Plant, February 25, 2015.
Stetson Engineers Inc., Preliminary Assessment of Hydrologic Conditions
Related to Riparian Habitat Health and Vigor in the Prado Basin
Management Zone, October 26, 2015.
Santa Ana Watershed Association, Annual Report, 2012.
U.S. Government Printing Office, Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife
Service Federal Register Volume 78, No.2, January 3, 2013.
Wildermuth Environmental Inc., Prado Basin Daily Discharge Estimates for
2021 and 2071 Using the Wasteload Allocation Model, January 24, 2014.
Section Appendix A, Notice of Preparation and Comments
Page Clarification/Revision
N/A The following NOP comment letter was omitted in the Draft EIR and has been
added to the end of the NOP comment letter table as follows:
Commenter/Date
Summary of Environmental
Issues Raised in Comment
Letter Sections Where Addressed
Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA)
11/12/2015
Commented that the proposed
project should be analyzed
using the countywide Flood
insurance rater maps (FIRMs)
and fulfill the NFIP floodplain
management building
requirements if: a) a building is
constructed within a riverine
floodplain b)if a area of
Hydrology and Water Quality
Sterling Natural Resource Center 12-40 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
12. Clarifications and Modifications
Commenter/Date
Summary of Environmental
Issues Raised in Comment
Letter Sections Where Addressed
construction is located within a
Regulatory Floodway or c) if a
Special Flood Hazard Area is
changed, then the appropriate
hydrologic data should be
submitted.
Sterling Natural Resource Center 12-41 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
STERLING NATURAL RESOURCE CENTER
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report:
SCH#: 2015101058
Prepared for July 2019
East Valley Water District
31111 Greenspot Road
Highland, CA 92346
Exhibit "B"
STERLING NATURAL RESOURCE CENTER
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report:
SCH#: 2015101058
July 2019
626 Wilshire Boulevard
Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90017
213.599.4300
esassoc.com
Bend
Camarillo
Delray Beach
Destin
Irvine
Los Angeles
Oakland
Orlando
Pasadena
Petaluma
Portland
Sacramento
San Diego
San Francisco
Santa Monica
Sarasota
Seattle
Tampa
OUR COMMITMENT TO SUSTAINABILITY | ESA helps a variety of public
and private sector clients plan and prepare for climate change and
emerging regulations that limit GHG emissions. ESA is a registered
assessor with the California Climate Action Registry, a Climate Leader, and
founding reporter for the Climate Registry. ESA is also a corporate member
of the U.S. Green Building Council and the Business Council on Climate
Change (BC3). Internally, ESA has adopted a Sustainability Vision and
Policy Statement and a plan to reduce waste and energy within our
operations. This document was produced using recycled paper.
Sterling Natural Resource Center i ESA / 150005.01
Addendum to the 2016 Final EIR July 2019
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact
Report: SCH#: 2015101058
Page
INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 1
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS ................................................................ 3
Emergency Operations and Recycled Water Detention Ponds ....................................... 3
Use of Adjacent Parcel ..................................................................................................... 6
Food Waste Facilities ....................................................................................................... 6
CEQA GUIDELINES FOR THE PREPARATION OF AN ADDENDUM .................................. 7
CEQA CONSISTENCY EVALUATION ..................................................................................... 8
POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES ........................................... 10
Air Quality ....................................................................................................................... 10
Greenhouse Gas Emissions ........................................................................................... 14
Hydrology and Water Quality ......................................................................................... 16
Land Use and Planning .................................................................................................. 18
Noise 20
Transportation and Traffic .............................................................................................. 24
Wildfire ............................................................................................................................ 26
SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................. 28
Appendices
A Revised Mobile Operational Air Emissions Modeling Outputs
B SNRC Traffic Study
List of Figures
Figure 1 Project Overview ........................................................................................................ 2
Figure 2 SNRC Facilities Revised Site Plan ............................................................................ 4
Figure 3 SNRC Facilities Revised East Side Boundary ........................................................... 5
List of Tables
Table 1 Air Quality Impacts and Mitigation Summary ............................................................. 10
Table 2 Revised Project Unmitigated Operational Emissions ................................................. 12
Table 3 Greenhouse Gas Impacts and Mitigation Summary .................................................. 14
Table 4 Revised Unmitigated Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................ 15
Table 5 Hydrology and Water Quality Impacts and Mitigation Summary ............................... 16
Table 6 Land Use and Planning Impacts and Mitigation Summary ........................................ 18
Table of Contents
Page
Sterling Natural Resource Center ii ESA / 150005.01
Addendum to the 2016 Final EIR July 2019
Table 7 Noise Impacts and Mitigation Summary ..................................................................... 21
Table 8 Traffic and Transportation Impacts and Mitigation Summary .................................... 24
Sterling Natural Resource Center 1 ESA / 150005.01
Addendum to the 2016 Final EIR July 2019
STERLING NATURAL RESOURCE CENTER
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact
Report: SCH#: 2015101058
INTRODUCTION
As lead agency under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines section 15051,
the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District (Valley District) prepared and certified an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in March of 2016 for the Sterling Natural Resource Center
(SNRC) that would treat wastewater generated in the East Valley Water District (EVWD or
District) service area for beneficial reuse in the Upper Santa Ana River watershed. The SNRC
would be located in the City of Highland and convey the tertiary-treated water to one or more of
the identified discharge points in City Creek, the East Twin Creek Spreading Grounds, or the
Redlands Basins (Figure 1). The discharged water would percolate into the groundwater basin,
augmenting local water supplies pursuant to Title 22 regulations governing indirect potable reuse
(IPR) projects.
The EIR was further certified by the board of EVWD in its role as a responsible agency in March
of 2016. Valley District and EVWD had entered into a Framework Agreement in 2015 to enable
collaboration between these two agencies with respect to the construction, operation, and funding
of the SNRC to advance the region’s integrated recycled water management objectives. In 2018,
Valley District and EVWD terminated the Framework Agreement pursuant to the June 2018
action of the San Bernardino County Local Agency Formation Commission to activate the latent
wastewater treatment functions and powers of EVWD, which required assignment of Valley
District’s responsibilities as lead agency under the EIR, including responsibility for all mitigation
measures identified in the SNRC Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan to EVWD, and
EVWD’s acceptance of these responsibilities.
Since the certification of the 2016 EIR and the transfer of lead agency responsibility to EVWD,
EVWD has modified the SNRC to allow: 1) consistent and essential secondary storage of
tertiary-treated recycled water in the originally proposed detention ponds to enable the SNRC to
perform its wastewater treatment operations, 2) use modifications to the Emergency Operations
Center facility to provide additional support for wastewater treatment operations; 3) incorporation
of a new parcel of land adjacent to the originally proposed location (Figure 2), and 4)
modifications to the SNRC to accept up to 670,000 gallons of food waste per week. As a result of
these proposed modifications, EVWD has prepared an Addendum pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
Section 15164 evaluating the potential for any of the proposed modifications to result in new
significant impacts not previously identified in the 2016 EIR.
!(")
")
No
r
t
h
D
e
l
R
o
s
a
D
r
dMarshall Blv
UV210
§¨¦10
§¨¦215
East 6th St
SAN BERNARDINO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
Santa Ana Riv
e
r
SOURCE: ESRI
Sterling NaturalResource Center
Redlands Basins
Treated Water Conveyance Pipeline
City Creek Extension
Figure 1 Project Overview
Force Main
Lift Station
Lift Station
SBWRP Bypass
SBWRP Existing Discharge
SAR Pipeline
East Twin Creek Spreading Grounds
Treated Water Conveyance Pipeline
0 8,000
Feet
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report: SCH#: 2015101058
Sterling Natural Resource Center 3 ESA / 150005.01
Addendum to the 2016 Final EIR July 2019
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS
Emergency Operations and Recycled Water Detention Ponds
As described in the 2016 EIR, the SNRC facilities would be constructed on parcels that are
divided by North Del Rosa Drive in the City of Highland (EIR, Figure 2-4a). The 2016 EIR
identified the west side of North Del Rosa Drive as the SNRC Administration Center, and the east
side as the SNRC Treatment Facility. Since the preparation of the 2016 EIR, the west side of the
SNRC has been redesigned to better serve wastewater treatment operations. Administration and
emergency operations of the SNRC would now be combined into one building, housing both
functions. This revised Emergency Operations Center building would be approximately 25,000
square feet and provide office space and meeting rooms for SNRC employees, a back-up
laboratory, as well as facilities to house back-up control systems that would interface with SNRC
operations. The Emergency Operations Center, may at times, serve the community by allowing
educational workshops and other similar events (Figure 2). However, during emergency
operations, the Emergency Operations Center would be used to mobilize equipment and
emergency staff and thus, would be closed to non-SNRC staff.
The 2016 EIR (Chapter 2, page 2-14) described construction of detention ponds on the west side
of North Del Rosa Drive that would also be capable of storing effluent flow from the SNRC. The
ponds would now contain tertiary-treated effluent and include a recirculation and filtration
management system to maintain water quality in the ponds. The holding ponds, occupying
approximately 1.2 acres, would be located in the same general area as depicted in Figure 2-4a of
the 2016 EIR. The ponds would be lined to prevent seepage into the underlying groundwater
basin, and, as described in Chapter 2 of the 2016 EIR, the area surrounding the ponds would
include natural landscaping, demonstration gardens and walking paths. The soil excavated from
the detention ponds would be reused onsite or hauled offsite. A network of pathways and green
space would be provided around the pond features to convey foot traffic from East 5th Street to
East 6th Street (Figure 2).
EMERGENCY
OPERATIONS
CENTER
ENTRYENTRY
EXIT
6TH ST 6TH ST
5TH ST
N
O
R
T
H
D
E
L
R
O
S
A
D
R
5TH ST
LA
X
\
1
5
x
x
x
x
\
D
1
5
0
0
0
5
.
0
1
-
E
a
s
t
V
a
l
l
e
y
W
a
t
e
r
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
R
e
c
y
l
e
d
W
a
t
e
r
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
M
M
R
P
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
\
0
5
G
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
-
G
I
S
-
M
o
d
e
l
i
n
g
\
I
l
l
u
s
t
r
a
t
o
r
Figure 2
SNRC Revised Facilities Site Plan
SOURCE: Ruhnau Clarke Architects, 2019
0 200
FeetN
6TH ST
5TH ST
DEL ROSA DR
FLEMING ST
BONNIE ST
SHIRLEY AVE
DONNA DR
DEL ROSA AVE
ELMWOOD
RD
MICHAEL DR
MARILYN AVE
DEL ROS
A AVE
Path: U:\G
IS\GIS\Projects\15xxxx\D150005_EVWD\03_MXDs_Projects\Addendum\Fig3_Revised_SNRC.mxd, jnielsen 6/21/2019
Project Site
0 200
FeetN
SOURCE: ESRI, 2019; San Bernardino County GIS, 2019.
Figure 3SNRC Facilities Revised East Side Boundary
SNRC EmergencyOperations Center SNRC TreatmentFacility 2 Acres
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report: SCH#: 2015101058
Sterling Natural Resource Center 6 ESA / 150005.01
Addendum to the 2016 Final EIR July 2019
Use of Adjacent Parcel
Since the preparation of the 2016 EIR, EVWD has purchased, and has vacated pursuant to all
required permits, 2 additional acres adjacent to the proposed project to the east. The new parcel
would expand the treatment facility boundary on the east side to facilitate efficient circulation of
delivery trucks at the site. The parcel was identified in the 2016 EIR as a potential purchase for
future expansion. The eastern boundary of the SNRC would now extend approximately 150 feet
eastward (Figure 3).
Food Waste Facilities
Since the preparation of the 2016 EIR, EVWD has redesigned the SNRC to accept a food waste
stream that would be used to increase the energy production capacity of the facility. With the
inclusion of food waste processing, the facilities would generate up to four bio-solids haul trucks
per day instead of two as described in the 2016 EIR. It is anticipated that up to 27 trucks per
weekday would deliver 135,000 gallons of liquid food to the SNRC for processing. As described
in the 2016 EIR, access to the SNRC site would be provided from North Del Rosa Drive and East
5th Street. Primary ingress and egress would be controlled by an electric gate off of North Del
Rosa Drive and 5th Street. Trucks would enter the site on North Del Rosa Drive and exit onto 5th
Street.
The new food waste facilities would increase the production of methane at the facility for use in
the proposed cogeneration facilities. Cogeneration converts methane to mechanical power and
heat which is typically accomplished through the use of gas fueled internal combustion engines,
micro-turbines or fuel cells. The proposed project evaluated in the 2016 EIR included
cogeneration to reduce the facility’s off-site energy demand. The new food waste stream would
further reduce the off-site energy demand. Electric power would be produced by micro-turbines,
fuel cells, or generators that are driven by the engines, and heat would be recovered from the
engine cooling water jacket and the exhaust. Recovered heat can be used for digester sludge
heating. The additional power generated by the additional methane gas would be used to operate
the SNRC and excess would be fed back to the local electrical grid. As described in the 2016 EIR,
the cogeneration facilities would require a permit from the South Coast Air Quality Management
District (SCAQMD).
The SNRC would continue to have a maximum capacity of 10 million gallons per day (MGD)
and produce tertiary treated water in compliance with California Code of Regulations Title 22
recycled water quality requirements. Construction activities for the revised SNRC site plan are
consistent with those described in Section 2.5 of the 2016 EIR. No other changes to the Project
are proposed.
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report: SCH#: 2015101058
Sterling Natural Resource Center 7 ESA / 150005.01
Addendum to the 2016 Final EIR July 2019
CEQA GUIDELINES FOR THE PREPARATION OF AN
ADDENDUM
This Addendum has been prepared to determine whether the changes to the Project would result
in new or substantially more severe significant environmental impacts compared with the impacts
disclosed in the certified EIR. CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164 set forth the criteria
for determining the appropriate additional environmental documentation, if any, to be completed
when there is a previously certified EIR covering a Project.
Section 15162(a) of the CEQA Guidelines states that preparation of a subsequent EIR is not
required unless one or more of the following conditions occur:
Substantial changes are proposed in the project which would require major revisions of the
previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial
increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
Substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the Project
is undertaken which would require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the
involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase the severity of
previously identified significant effects; and
New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been
known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time of the previous EIR was certified
as complete and adopted, shows any of the following:
– The project would have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR;
– Significant effects previously examined would be substantially more severe than shown
in the previous EIR;
– Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be
feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but
the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
– Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed
in the previous EIR or negative declaration would substantially reduce one or more
significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the
mitigation measures or alternative.
Section 15162(b) states that if changes to a project or its circumstances occur or new information
becomes available after adoption of a negative declaration, the lead agency shall prepare a
subsequent EIR if required under subdivision (a). Otherwise the lead agency shall determine
whether to prepare a subsequent negative declaration, an addendum, or no further documentation.
Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines states that:
The lead agency or responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified
EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in
Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred.
An addendum may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or
none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent
EIR have occurred.
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report: SCH#: 2015101058
Sterling Natural Resource Center 8 ESA / 150005.01
Addendum to the 2016 Final EIR July 2019
An addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to
the final EIR.
The decision making body shall consider the addendum with the final EIR prior to making a
decision on the project.
A brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section
15162 should be included in an addendum to an EIR, the lead agency's findings on the
Project, or elsewhere in the record. The explanation must be supported by substantial
evidence.
This Addendum relies on the significance criteria established in the 2019 CEQA Guidelines and
the resource analysis methodology, described in the 2016 EIR to assess the potential impacts
related to the Project modifications. Each resource section presents a summary of the impacts and
mitigation conclusions from the analysis in the 2016 EIR, as well as a determination as to
whether the Project modifications would result in new significant impacts, or a substantial
increase in the severity of the impacts.
In compliance with CEQA Guidelines §15150, this Addendum has incorporated by reference the
Final EIR certified by Valley District in 2016, and further certified by EVWD, which includes all
technical studies, analyses, and technical reports that were prepared as part of the Draft and Final
EIR. In addition, this Addendum incorporates air emissions, and noise and traffic technical
studies conducted for the Project modifications.
CEQA CONSISTENCY EVALUATION
No substantial changes to the environment in the vicinity of the SNRC have occurred since the
preparation of the 2016 EIR. The SNRC would continue to provide tertiary treatment to
wastewater generated within the EVWD service area, producing treated water that would be
available for multiple recycled water uses including groundwater replenishment and habitat
enhancement. The changes to the SNRC are primarily related to operations, and, as such, the only
resource areas that may be affected by the changes are air quality, greenhouse gases, noise,
hydrology, land use and planning, and transportation. The liquid food waste would be introduced
to the anaerobic digestion process along with the wastewater solids as described in the 2016 EIR,
and both streams would be processed as a blend through digestion, dewatering, and disposal. The
refinements to the site plan, as described above, would occur primarily within the original
planned footprint of the SNRC described in the 2016 EIR. Therefore, the following
environmental topics are eliminated from further review in this Addendum. However, Mitigation
Measures associated with these topics adopted with the certification of the 2016 EIR remain in
effect.
Aesthetics
Changes to the SNRC facilities and operations do not include any new treatment facilities
or any other substantial changes beyond that which was evaluated in the 2016 EIR. Thus,
the impacts to aesthetics described in Section 3.1 of the 2016 EIR remain unchanged.
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report: SCH#: 2015101058
Sterling Natural Resource Center 9 ESA / 150005.01
Addendum to the 2016 Final EIR July 2019
Agricultural and Forest Resources
The facilities would be constructed on vacant parcels located within an urban
environment, zoned for business use by the City of Highland. There are no agricultural or
forestry resources to evaluate. Thus, the impacts to agriculture and forestry resources
described in Section 3.2 of the 2016 EIR remain unchanged.
Biological
Biological surveys conducted during the preparation of the 2016 EIR were inclusive of
all lands within the SNRC construction footprint, including the 2-acre area considered for
future expansion. Thus, the impacts to biological resources described in Section 3.4 of the
2016 EIR remain unchanged.
Cultural
Cultural surveys conducted during the preparation of the 2016 EIR were inclusive of all
lands within the SNRC construction footprint, including the 2-acre area considered for
future expansion. Thus, the impacts to cultural resources described in Section 3.5 of the
2016 EIR remain unchanged.
Geological
The refinement to the SNRC site plan would not impact geological conditions beyond
that which was described in the 2016 EIR. The 2016 EIR evaluated the geological
conditions and impacts associated with excavation and placement of structures within and
in the vicinity of the SNRC. Thus, the impacts to geological resources described in
Section 3.6 of the 2016 EIR remain unchanged.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The changes to the SNRC operations would not increase the need or use of additional
chemicals or other hazards beyond that which were described in the 2016 EIR. The
addition of liquid food waste for processing would be transported within sealed trucks
and managed in accordance with standard operations of the supplier. The 2016 EIR
evaluated the hazardous conditions and impacts associated with operations of the SNRC.
Thus, the impacts due to hazards and hazardous materials described in Section 3.8 of the
2016 EIR remain unchanged.
Population and Housing
Changes to the SNRC site plan would occur primarily within the original footprint
described in the 2016 EIR. The additional trucks delivering food waste would not
increase the need for additional housing or otherwise change conditions in the vicinity of
the SNRC beyond that which was analyzed in the 2016 EIR. Thus, the impacts to
population and housing described in Section 3.12 of the 2016 EIR remain unchanged.
Public Services and Utilities
Changes to the SNRC facilities would occur primarily within the original footprint
described in the 2016 EIR. The additional trucks delivering food waste would not
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report: SCH#: 2015101058
Sterling Natural Resource Center 10 ESA / 150005.01
Addendum to the 2016 Final EIR July 2019
increase the need or create a change in public services and utilities beyond that which
was analyzed in the 2016 EIR. Thus, the impacts to public services and utilities described
in Section 3.13 of the 2016 EIR remain unchanged.
Recreation
There are no recreational uses within SNRC facilities footprint. Thus, the impacts due to
recreational resources described in Section 3.14 of the 2016 EIR remain unchanged.
POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ENVIRONMENTAL
RESOURCES
Air Quality
Summary of Project Impacts in the 2016 EIR
Table 1 summarizes the Impact and Mitigation Analysis in 2016 EIR for air quality. The 2016
EIR determined that the project would have a less than significant effect to air quality with
implementation of Mitigation Measures AIR-1 and AIR-2, with the exception of short-term
construction emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOx), which would be significant and unavoidable.
TABLE 1
AIR QUALITY IMPACTS AND MITIGATION SUMMARY
2016 EIR Project Impact Mitigation Measure Significance Conclusion
Consistency with Air Quality
Management Plans
None Required Less than Significant
Air Quality Standards AIR-1 Construction emissions of NOx would
be Significant and Unavoidable.
Operational emissions would be Less
than Significant
Cumulative Impact AIR-1 Significant and Unavoidable for NOx
emissions
Sensitive Receptors None required Less than Significant
Objectionable Odors AIR-2 Less than Significant with Mitigation
Impact and Mitigation Analysis of Project Modifications
State and federal attainment status for criteria pollutants in the region has not changed since the
preparation of the 2016 EIR (Tables 3.3-2 and 3.3-3). The 2016 EIR evaluated significance of
Project emissions based on thresholds established by the SCAQMD (Table 3.3-4). Construction
emissions beyond that which was estimated in the 2016 EIR are not expected to increase as a
result of the revised SNRC facilities. With the additional food-waste delivery trucks, operational
air emissions are expected to increase. Revised operational emissions modeling has been
conducted to evaluate the additional mobile emissions associated with the modifications to the
Project (Appendix A, Revised SNRC Mobile Emissions Modeling Outputs) and compared with
SCAQMD’s established significance thresholds. As a result of the increase in cogeneration
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report: SCH#: 2015101058
Sterling Natural Resource Center 11 ESA / 150005.01
Addendum to the 2016 Final EIR July 2019
capacity from approximately 1 to 3 megawatts, the revised cogeneration emissions were
estimated as follows: The EIR evaluated 1600 HP as the combustion engine which corresponds to
approximately 1.2 megawatts. With the addition of food waste, EVWD is planning on a 3.0
megawatt power generation capacity thus the formula [3/1.2 * 2016 EIR Emissions] was used to
estimate the revised cogeneration emissions. This revised cogeneration emissions estimate
assumes 100% load capacity operating 90% of the time which is standard for capacity and
duration.
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
AIR QUALITY —
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution
control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.
Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase
of any criteria pollutant for which the project region
is non-attainment under an applicable federal or
state ambient air quality standard?
☒ ☐ ☐ ☐
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading
to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number
of people?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
Discussion
The Project would produce recycled water for reuse in the Upper SAR watershed, and essentially
replace treatment processes and air emissions currently generated at facilities owned and operated
by the City of San Bernardino. As described in the 2016 EIR, the District would be required to
comply with all rules and regulations established by SCAQMD to permit construction and
operation of the Project. The proposed modifications to the Project would also conform to
applicable SCAQMD rules and regulations regarding management of the air basin. Specifically,
rule 1110.2 requires best available technologies be applied to stationary engines in order to
reduce NOx emissions. With the use of emissions control technologies, more than 70 percent of
the facilities NOx emissions would be eliminated (Environmental Protection Agency, 2019)1.
Therefore, the Project, as modified, conforms with state and federal air management goals
established in the SCAQMD air quality management plan.
Construction activities and emissions as a result of the modified SNRC facilities would be
consistent with activities and emissions evaluated in the 2016 EIR. Daily construction activities
are not expected to increase in intensity as there are no significant changes to the SNRC facilities
1 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2019. Air Pollution Control Technology Fact Sheet.
https://www3.epa.gov/ttncatc1/dir1/fscr.pdf.
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report: SCH#: 2015101058
Sterling Natural Resource Center 12 ESA / 150005.01
Addendum to the 2016 Final EIR July 2019
compared to the project evaluated in the 2016 EIR. The 2016 EIR concluded that construction
emissions would exceed significance thresholds for certain criteria pollutants and included
Mitigation Measure AIR-1 to reduce air emissions for off-road construction equipment greater
than 50 HP. With implementation of AIR-1, construction emissions would be reduced but short-
term construction NOx emissions would remain significant and unavoidable.
The 2016 EIR concluded that operational emissions were below SCAQMD’s significance levels
for all criteria pollutants (Table 3.3-10 of the Final EIR). The additional 27 trucks per week day
delivering food waste material for processing at the SNRC would result in an increase in methane
combustion at the cogeneration facility and an increase in the Project’s daily mobile emissions
during operations. Results of the revised emissions modeling indicate that the increase in mobile
operational emissions of criteria pollutants would not be significant, and mobile operational
emissions would remain below the SCAQMD’s regional threshold limits (Appendix A). The
revised uncontrolled cogeneration emissions as a result of the modifications to the Project would
also remain below the SCAQMD’s significance thresholds. With the application of emissions
control technologies, the cogeneration emissions would be reduced more than 70 percent. Revised
estimated maximum operational emissions of the Project are provided in Table 2. As discussed
above, and in the 2016 EIR, operation of the cogeneration facility would be subject to permitting
requirements to operate from the SCAQMD.
TABLE 2
REVISED PROJECT UNMITIGATED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
Emissions Source
Estimated Emissions (lbs./day)
ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Emergency Operations Center
Area Sources 1.45 0.0001 0.013 0.00 0.00005 0.00005
Energy Sources (Natural Gas) 0.003 0.02 0.02 0.0002 0.002 0.002
Mobile Sources 1.03 3.28 12.06 0.03 1.92 0.54
SNRC
Area Sources 1.09 0.00004 0.004 0.00 0.00002 0.00002
Revised Cogeneration System
Emissions 1.28 35.17 3.74 1.44 2.63 2.54
Mobile - Employee Vehicles 0.07 0.09 1.09 0.003 0.23 0.06
Revised Mobile – Trucks 0.31 11.09 2.30 0.026 0.49 0.132
Revised Total Emissions 5.23 49.65 19.23 1.50 5.27 3.27
Regional Significance Threshold 55 55 550 150 100 55
Significant Impact? No No No No No No
NOTE: See Appendix A for CalEEMod model outputs.
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report: SCH#: 2015101058
Sterling Natural Resource Center 13 ESA / 150005.01
Addendum to the 2016 Final EIR July 2019
As indicated in Table 2 and described above, implementation of the Project, including the
addition of up to 27 delivery trucks and processing up to 135,000 gallons of liquid food waste per
weekday would not result in significant regional emissions of criteria air pollutants and ozone
precursors associated with area sources and mobile emissions. The Project’s operational
emissions, as revised would be well below the SCAQMD’s thresholds of significance for daily
emissions and would not be cumulatively considerable.
Use of the detention ponds to consistently store tertiary-treated recycled water would not change
air emissions associated with construction and operation of the proposed project. Similarly, the
use of the additional property east of the original site would not increase air emissions.
As described in Section 3.3 of the 2016 EIR, construction of the Project would generate
emissions near sensitive receptors in the vicinity including a school and residential
neighborhoods. The use of the new parcel would continue to place the SNRC facilities adjacent to
the neighboring residences. Although the revised operational emissions remain below the
significance thresholds for regional emissions of criteria pollutants, the SNRC would be subject
to permitting requirements that may include a Health Risk Assessment.
No new treatment facilities are proposed as a result of the inclusion of liquid food waste to the
SNRC for processing. The additional truck deliveries would not increase foul odors significantly
beyond that which was analyzed in the 2016 EIR. Liquid food waste delivered to the SNRC
would be held in sealed tanks and be transported to the SNRC through an air controlled system.
As described in the 2016 EIR, EVWD would prepare an Odor Impact Minimization Plan (OIMP),
Mitigation Measure AIR-2 that would provide operational protocols for the treatment facility’s
odor control system. No new odors are anticipated as a result of the revisions to the SNRC
facilities and operations.
Conclusion
Revisions to the SNRC operations would not increase the maximum daily construction emissions.
New truck trips associated with operations of the food waste system would not increase mobile
emissions significantly. Emissions associated with the cogeneration facility would be permitted
through the SCAQMD similar to the proposed project evaluated in the 2016 EIR. Impacts related
to the proposed modifications of the Project are consistent with those described in Section 3.3 of
the EIR. No new mitigation would be necessary to reduce operational emissions.
Significance Determination
Impacts from construction and operation to air quality from the Project modifications are
consistent with those identified in the 2016 EIR. Substantial changes are not proposed to the
Project, requiring major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant
effects to air quality. No new information of substantial importance indicates the Project would
have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR to air quality nor are
significant effects previously examined substantially more severe than described in the previous
EIR.
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report: SCH#: 2015101058
Sterling Natural Resource Center 14 ESA / 150005.01
Addendum to the 2016 Final EIR July 2019
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Summary of Project Impacts in the 2016 EIR
Table 3 summarizes the Impact and Mitigation Analysis in 2016 EIR for greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions. The 2016 EIR determined that the Project would have a less than significant effect to
GHG emissions.
TABLE 3
GREENHOUSE GAS IMPACTS AND MITIGATION SUMMARY
2016 EIR Project Impact Mitigation Measure Significance Conclusion
Greenhouse Gas Emissions None Required Less than Significant
Conflict With Adopted Plan None Required Less than Significant
Impact and Mitigation Analysis of Project Modifications
Construction activities and emissions of GHGs are consistent with those described in the 2016
EIR. The addition of 27 delivery trucks of liquid food waste per weekday to the SNRC has the
potential to increase the Project’s overall operational GHG emissions. A revised GHG assessment
was prepared to estimate mobile operational emissions (Appendix A) and results were compared
to the significance threshold for GHG emissions established by the SCAQMD, and in the 2016
EIR, of 10,000 CO2 e metric tons per year (MT/yr) for industrial facilities. As a result of the
increase in cogeneration capacity from approximately 1 to 3 megawatts, the revised cogeneration
GHG emissions were estimated as described above in Air Quality.
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS —
Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly
or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Discussion
As indicated in Table 3.7-2 of the 2016 EIR, operational GHG emissions would be below 10,000
CO2 e MT/yr set by the SCAQMD for industrial facilities. The addition of 27 trucks per day to
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report: SCH#: 2015101058
Sterling Natural Resource Center 15 ESA / 150005.01
Addendum to the 2016 Final EIR July 2019
the SNRC for processing would not increase the Project’s overall GHG emissions beyond the
significance thresholds established by the SCAQMD (Table 4). The additional methane captured
from the food waste and sent to the cogeneration facilities would capture methane before it enters
the atmosphere, reducing fugitive GHG emissions. Furthermore, the power generated by the
cogeneration facility would be used to offset the SNRC’s energy demand, and excess energy
produced would be fed-back to the local electrical grid thereby reducing GHG emissions
associated with off-site energy generation. Additionally, as described above in Air Quality, the
SCAQMD would require the cogeneration facilities to utilize NOx emission reduction
technologies to permit SNRC operations. Applicable control technologies would reduce GHG
emissions by reducing NOx emissions. The annual GHG emissions associated with the operation
of SNRC would remain well below the SCAQMD’s GHG significance threshold. Therefore, the
revisions to the SNRC facilities and operations would be consistent with the state’s GHG
emissions reduction goals.
Use of the detention ponds to store tertiary-treated recycled water would not change GHG
emissions associated with construction and operation of the proposed project. Similarly, the use
of the additional property east of the original site would not increase GHG emissions.
TABLE 4
REVISED UNMITIGATED OPERATIONAL GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Emergency Operations Center 423.88
SNRC:
Area Source 0.01
Worker Vehicle Emissions 24.44
Revised Truck-Only Emissions 333.85
Revised Cogeneration Emissions
1013.04
Electricity 5123.36
Revised Total Operational: GHG Emissions 6,918.58
Conclusion
Impacts related to modification of the Project during construction and operation are consistent
with those described in Section 3.7 of the EIR. The Project would not exceed daily or annual
GHG emissions thresholds of significance established by the SCAQMD. Emissions of GHGs as a
result of the proposed project modifications would remain less than significant. No new
mitigation is required.
Significance Determination
Impacts to atmospheric levels of GHG from the Project are below current thresholds of
significance established by the regional air quality management district. Substantial changes are
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report: SCH#: 2015101058
Sterling Natural Resource Center 16 ESA / 150005.01
Addendum to the 2016 Final EIR July 2019
not proposed in the Project, requiring major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement
of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified significant effects to atmospheric levels of GHG. No new information of substantial
importance indicates the Project would have one or more significant effects not discussed in the
previous EIR nor are significant effects previously examined substantially more severe than
described in the previous EIR.
Hydrology and Water Quality
Summary of Project Impacts in the 2016 EIR
Table 5 summarizes the Impact and Mitigation Analysis in 2016 EIR for hydrological resources
and water quality. The 2016 EIR determined that the Project would have a less than significant
effect to hydrological resources with implementation of Mitigation Measures HYDRO-1 through
HYDRO-5.
TABLE 5
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY IMPACTS AND MITIGATION SUMMARY
2016 EIR Project Impact Mitigation Measure Significance Conclusion
Impacts to Water Quality
Standards or Waste Discharge
Requirements
HYDRO-1, HYDRO-2 Less than Significant with
Mitigation
Impacts to Groundwater
Supplies or Groundwater
Recharge
None Required Less than Significant
Impacts to Drainage Patterns HYDRO-3, HYDRO-4 Less than Significant with
Mitigation
Exceed Capacity of Storm
Drainage Systems
HYDRO-5 Less than Significant with
Mitigation
100 Year Flood Hazard Area None Required No Impact
Significant Risk Associated
with Flooding
None Required Less than Significant
Impede or Redirect Flood
Flows
HYDRO-3 Less than Significant with
Mitigation
Inundation by Seiche,
Tsunami, Mudflow
None Required No Impact
Minimum Flows for
Downstream Diverters
None Required Less than Significant
Impact and Mitigation Analysis of Project Modifications
The watershed in the Project area has not changed since the preparation of the 2016 EIR. The
revised SNRC includes the use of detention ponds planned for the west side of North Del Rosa
Drive to store tertiary-treated water to provide an additional source of treated water for
operational flexibility and for use during emergency operations. No other changes to hydrological
conditions or impacts to hydrological resources in the vicinity of the Project are considered.
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report: SCH#: 2015101058
Sterling Natural Resource Center 17 ESA / 150005.01
Addendum to the 2016 Final EIR July 2019
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY —
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise substantially
degrade surface or ground water quality?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that the project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or
off-site;
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in
flooding on- or offsite;
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iii) create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff;
or
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
iv) impede or redirect flood flows? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk
release of pollutants due to project inundation?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water
quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Discussion
As described in the 2016 EIR, the detention ponds would serve as stormwater catchment basins.
The ponds would now also store tertiary-treated recycled water. The treated water would meet all
the requirements for full body contact described in the Title 22 recycled water regulations. The
use of the detention ponds to hold tertiary-treated water as well as the expansion of the east side
boundary by 2 acres would not change hydrological and water quality impacts beyond that which
was evaluated in the 2016 EIR.
The addition of liquid food waste to SNRC operations would change the quality of the recycled
water discharged to City Creek or other recharge locations by increasing the total dissolved solids
(TDS) concentration. As described in the 2016 EIR, SNRC discharges would require permitting
through state and regional water quality control agencies for the introduction of treated effluent
into surface waters and recharge basins. Approvals would likely require technical studies to
evaluate the source water and treatment technologies. With agency approvals, protection of
surface and groundwater resources would be ensured, and impacts as a result of the increase in
TDS concentrations or other constituents in discharge waters would not change beyond that
which was evaluated in the 2016 EIR. The addition of 670,000 gallons of liquid food waste per
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report: SCH#: 2015101058
Sterling Natural Resource Center 18 ESA / 150005.01
Addendum to the 2016 Final EIR July 2019
week to the SNRC facilities would not change impacts related to points of diversion or volume of
discharge described in the 2016 EIR.
Conclusion
As described in the 2016 EIR, impacts to storm water runoff quality would be less than
significant with mitigation. Impacts related to modification of the Project are consistent with
those described in Section 3.9 of the EIR and no new mitigation is required. Impacts to
hydrological resources as a result of the revisions to the Project, would remain less than
significant with mitigation incorporated.
Significance Determination
Impacts from construction and operation to hydrology and water quality resources from the
Project modifications are consistent with those identified in the 2016 EIR. Substantial changes are
not proposed in the Project, requiring major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement
of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified significant effects to hydrology and water quality resources. No new information of
substantial importance indicates the Project would have one or more significant effects not
discussed in the previous EIR nor are significant effects previously examined substantially more
severe than described in the previous EIR.
Land Use and Planning
Summary of Project Impact and Mitigation Analysis in 2016 EIR
Table 6 summarizes the Impact and Mitigation Analysis in 2016 EIR for land uses in the Project
area. The 2016 EIR determined that the Project would have a less than significant effect to
existing land uses.
TABLE 6
LAND USE AND PLANNING IMPACTS AND MITIGATION SUMMARY
2016 EIR Project Impact Mitigation Measure Significance Conclusion
Divide an Established
Community
None required No Impact
Consistency with Land Use
Plans
None required Less than Significant
Habitat Conservation Plans or
Natural Community
Conservation Plans
None required Less than Significant
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report: SCH#: 2015101058
Sterling Natural Resource Center 19 ESA / 150005.01
Addendum to the 2016 Final EIR July 2019
Impact and Mitigation Analysis of Project Modifications
Land uses in the vicinity of the SNRC have not changed since the preparation of the 2016 EIR.
Land uses consist largely of residential, industrial and commercial uses. Modifications to the
Project are evaluated for consistency with surrounding land uses.
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
LAND USE AND PLANNING —
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a
conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Discussion
The addition of liquid food waste to the SNRC operations, as well as the refinement in the site
plan, would not create a barrier or physically divide an established community. As described in
the 2016 EIR, and this Addendum, the SNRC would be sited on a vacant parcel and integrated
into the immediate urban landscape, which currently serves business uses.
As described in the 2016 EIR, the SNRC would be located in the City of Highland on parcels
with zoning and land use designations of Business Park. Surrounding land uses designations
along the 5th Street corridor are also Business Park, and 5th Street is a major transportation route
for trucks. Section 3.10 of the 2016 EIR summarizes how the SNRC would be generally
consistent with local land use plans and policies. The expansion of facilities to the east through
the acquisition of a 2-acre parcel would serve to facilitate the efficient ingress and egress of
delivery trucks to the SNRC. Considering 5th Street is a major transportation route, the additional
truck deliveries to the SNRC would not be inconsistent with surrounding land uses.
Revisions to the SNRC facilities include the designation of the west side’s detention ponds for
storage of tertiary-treated water which would provide necessary wastewater treatment operational
capacity. Furthermore, the revised Emergency Operations Center building on the west side of
North Del Rosa Drive would serve critical operational functions, in addition to the administrative
functions, that are indispensable to water treatment. The Emergency Operations Center would
provide an essential staging area, as well as laboratory and monitoring back-up capabilities,
during emergency situations. Revisions to the SNRC facilities and operations would not be
inconsistent with current land use or zoning designations.
Government Code expressly exempts wastewater and water treatment facilities from local zoning
regulations, including general plan land use designations, and building regulations. Government
Code section 53091(e) provides that “Zoning ordinances of a county or city shall not apply to the
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report: SCH#: 2015101058
Sterling Natural Resource Center 20 ESA / 150005.01
Addendum to the 2016 Final EIR July 2019
location or construction of facilities for the production, generation, storage, treatment, or
transmission of water…” Further, Government Code Section 53095 provides that Section 53901
also extends to a city’s general plan land use designations. The revisions to the SNRC facilities
provide additional storage of tertiary-treated recycled water for use during normal operations and
essential wastewater treatment operational functionality. Under these Government Code
exemptions, the SNRC facilities would be exempt from local zoning regulations.
As described in the 2016 EIR, the SNRC would be a new facility equipped with odor and noise
control systems that would minimize impacts to the neighboring land uses. The facility would
introduce attractive architecture and landscaping features including roadway enhancements that
would complement the neighborhood and would be compatible with surrounding residential
neighborhoods. The development would be an improvement to the vacant lot and construction
lay-down area currently on the site.
Conclusion
The proposed modifications to the treatment facilities on the eastern and western portions of the
site would be essential to the operational efficiencies of the SNRC. As a result, these facilities
would be considered exempt from local zoning regulations. There would be no new impacts to
land uses beyond those that were identified in Section 3.10 of the 2016 EIR. Therefore, impacts
to land uses, would remain less than significant. No new mitigation is required.
Significance Determination
Impacts to land uses from the Project modifications are consistent with those identified in the
2016 EIR. Substantial changes are not proposed in the Project, requiring major revisions of the
previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial
increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects to land uses and planning. No
new information of substantial importance indicates the Project would have one or more
significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR nor are significant effects previously
examined substantially more severe than described in the previous EIR.
Noise
Summary of Project Impacts in the 2016 EIR
Table 7 summarizes the Impact and Mitigation Analysis in the 2016 EIR. The 2016 EIR
determined that the Project would have a significant effect from noise during construction of the
SNRC even with the incorporation of Mitigation Measures NOISE-1 through NOISE-3.
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report: SCH#: 2015101058
Sterling Natural Resource Center 21 ESA / 150005.01
Addendum to the 2016 Final EIR July 2019
TABLE 7
NOISE IMPACTS AND MITIGATION SUMMARY
2016 EIR Project Impact Mitigation Measure Significance Conclusion
Exposure to Excessive Noise
Levels Exceeding Standards
NOISE-1 through NOISE-3 Less than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporated
Excessive Ground-borne
Vibration
None required Less than Significant
Substantial Permanent
Increase in Ambient Noise
Levels
Substantial Temporary
Increase in Ambient Noise
Levels
NOISE-2 and NOISE-3
NOISE-1
Less than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporated
Significant and Unavoidable
Exposure to Excessive Airport
Noise Levels
Exposure to Excessive Airstrip
Noise Levels
None required
None required
Less than Significant
No Impact
Impact and Mitigation Analysis of Project Modifications
Since the preparation of the 2016 EIR, the Project’s regulatory setting for noise and vibration has
not changed. As described in the 2016 EIR, and this Addendum, the SNRC would be constructed
on two parcels that are divided by North Del Rosa Drive in the City of Highland (Figure 3). The
addition of 670,000 gallons of food waste per week to operations at the SNRC would increase
noise due to week day truck deliveries to the site. Additionally, the easterly expansion of the
facilities by 2-acres would generate noise during construction in close proximity to residential
uses. The 2016 EIR evaluated effects of groundborne vibrations at 25 feet from the source and
concluded that although groundborne vibrations may be felt locally, the vibrations would be far
below thresholds that could result in damage. Considering construction activities associated with
the modifications to the Project are consistent with those described in the 2016 EIR, impacts from
vibration as a result of the modifications to the SNRC facilities are expected to be similar.
Therefore, impacts from vibration are not considered further.
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report: SCH#: 2015101058
Sterling Natural Resource Center 22 ESA / 150005.01
Addendum to the 2016 Final EIR July 2019
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
NOISE — Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the
project in excess of standards established in the local
general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
☒ ☐ ☐ ☐
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private
airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, would the project
expose people residing or working in the project area
to excessive noise levels?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Discussion
The SNRC is located adjacent to and in the vicinity of sensitive noise receptors such as residences
and schools. As described in the 2016 EIR, noise sources commonly include, traffic, construction
work, commercial operations, human activities, emergency vehicles, and aircraft overflights. Of
these sources, transportation-related noise associated with vehicular traffic is generally the
constant, dominating noise source that comprises the area’s ambient noise levels.
The easterly expansion of the SNRC would bring the facility construction and operations
approximately 150 feet closer to the neighboring residences. As described in the 2016 EIR, Table
3.11-6, noise from construction activities at the SNRC would typically generate noise levels in
the range of 78 to 89 dBA Leq at 50 feet from the construction noise source. These noise levels
would diminish rapidly with distance from the construction site at a rate of approximately 6 dBA
per doubling of distance.
The addition of 27 trucks delivering liquid food waste to the SNRC operations each week day
would increase ambient noise levels slightly beyond that which was evaluated in the 2016 EIR.
Delivery trucks are assumed to access the site consistently over an 8-hour workday,
approximately 3 per hour (Appendix B, SNRC Traffic Study). The City of Highland has
designated 5th Street and Del Rosa Drive as truck routes linking industrial areas with major
roadways and freeway connections throughout the City. As described in the City of Highland
General Plan, Circulation Element, the 5th Street east-west truck route accommodates
commercial, industrial and mineral extraction haul trucks. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect
that the noise generated by the additional truck deliveries to the SNRC during operations would
be consistent with existing traffic related noise conditions.
As described in the 2016 EIR, construction activities would temporarily expose sensitive
receptors in the vicinity of the SNRC to a substantial increase in ambient noise levels.
Construction activities associated with the detention ponds and along the revised east side
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report: SCH#: 2015101058
Sterling Natural Resource Center 23 ESA / 150005.01
Addendum to the 2016 Final EIR July 2019
boundary of facilities (Figure 3) would be consistent with activities described in the 2016 EIR.
The 2016 EIR concluded that Mitigation Measure NOISE-1 would be implemented to minimize
effects of construction noise, requiring construction activities to be conducted in accordance with
the applicable local noise regulations and standards, the implementation of noise reduction
devices and techniques during construction activities, and advance notification to the surrounding
noise-sensitive receptors of upcoming construction activities and their hours of operation. As
described in the 2016 EIR, although implementation of Mitigation Measure NOISE-1 would
reduce construction noise levels associated with construction activities to the maximum extent
feasible, sensitive receptors located immediately adjacent to construction activities could
experience a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels above existing
levels. The 2016 EIR determined that these impacts were significant and unavoidable. The
District would comply with NOISE-1 to reduce impacts related to the modifications to the SNRC
facilities but noise impacts during construction would remain substantial and unavoidable.
In addition to construction activity, operational noise would be generated from on-site treatment
equipment. Mitigation Measures NOISE-2 and NOISE-3 described in the 2016 EIR requires the
stationary mechanized equipment to comply with the local noise standards, and for the equipment
to be designed and located in a manner such that neighboring sensitive land uses would not be
exposed to a perceptible noise increase in their environment. Additionally, Mitigation Measure
NOISE-3 would establish a 24-hour Hot-Line to serve the local community to ensure that
neighbor concerns are investigated and addressed immediately. The Project as revised would also
be required to implement these mitigation measures to reduce noise levels during operations.
As described in the 2016 EIR, the SNRC would be located within 0.5 mile of the San Bernardino
International Airport. Approximately 25 workers would be located at the SNRC site once it is
constructed. Additional employees are not anticipated to be required as a result of the
modifications to the SNRC facilities, therefore, no new impacts are anticipated to occur as a
result of the modifications beyond that which was evaluated in the 2016 EIR.
Conclusion
Impacts associated with the revised SNRC facilities and operations would be consistent with
those described in Section 3.11 of the 2016 EIR. NOISE-1 through NOISE-3 would be
implemented to reduce noise levels related to construction and operation to less than significant
however, as concluded in the 2016 EIR, noise generated during construction of the SNRC would
remain significant and unavoidable.
Significance Determination
Impacts from noise to sensitive receptors from construction and operation of the Project
modifications are consistent with those identified in the 2016 EIR. Substantial changes are not
proposed in the Project, requiring major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of
new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified significant effects. No new information of substantial importance indicates the Project
would have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR nor are significant
effects previously examined substantially more severe than described in the previous EIR.
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report: SCH#: 2015101058
Sterling Natural Resource Center 24 ESA / 150005.01
Addendum to the 2016 Final EIR July 2019
Transportation and Traffic
Summary of Project Impacts in the 2016 EIR
Table 8 summarizes the Impact and Mitigation Analysis in 2016 EIR for transportation and
traffic. The 2016 EIR determined that the Project would have a less than significant effect with
implementation of Mitigation Measures TR-1 through TR-5.
TABLE 8
TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS AND MITIGATION SUMMARY
2016 EIR Project Impact Mitigation Measure Significance Conclusion
Consistency with Regulations for
Circulation System Performance
TR-1 through TR-5 Less than Significant
Air Traffic None required No Impact
Traffic Hazards TR-4 Less than Significant with Mitigation
Emergency Access TR-1 Less than Significant with Mitigation
Public Transit, Bicycle, or
Pedestrian Facilities
None required No Impact
Impact and Mitigation Analysis of Project Modifications
The transportation and traffic conditions in the vicinity of the Project have not changed since the
preparation of the 2016 EIR. A traffic study was prepared to evaluate the impacts associated with
the increase in delivery trucks to the SNRC (Appendix B, SNRC Traffic Study), and results were
compared with the City of Highlands Circulation thresholds established in the city’s General
Plan.
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
TRANSPORTATION — Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with
CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
Discussion
Site preparation of the 2-acre parcel along the easterly border of the SNRC facility as well as the
detention ponds on the west side of North Del Rosa Drive would not result in an impact to traffic
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report: SCH#: 2015101058
Sterling Natural Resource Center 25 ESA / 150005.01
Addendum to the 2016 Final EIR July 2019
and transportation during construction beyond that which was described in the 2016 EIR.
Construction equipment, staging, site preparation and the deliveries of construction crews and
facility components would remain unchanged. As described in the 2016 EIR, implementation of
Mitigation Measures TR-1 through TR-3 would reduce the potential construction traffic impacts
associated with construction by requiring all construction activities to be conducted in accordance
with an approved construction traffic control plan. This would serve to reduce the construction-
related traffic impacts to the maximum extent feasible.
Operations of the facility would increase local traffic as a result of liquid food waste delivery
trucks of approximately 3 per hour. However, this number of trips would not result in road
capacity exceedance as indicated in the SNRC Traffic Study (Appendix B). The intersections in
the vicinity of the SNRC would continue to operate acceptably at Level of Service (LOS) D or
better. The City of Highland General Plan, Circulation Element, establishes that LOS D or better
is acceptable for major intersections in the City.
As described in the 2016 EIR, during school drop off and pick up times, traffic on 6th Street and
North Del Rosa Drive could be affected. The ingress and egress for solids handling trucks and
deliveries of liquid food waste would occur on North Del Rosa Drive and 5th Street. Turn-in and
merge lane improvements on the road shoulder may be required on 5th Street to minimize
impacts to the through traffic. Mitigation Measures TR-1 through TR-5 as described in the 2016
EIR would be implemented to reduce traffic during peak transportation times, require the District
to prepare a traffic control plan and provide for coordination with the City of Highland for any
improvements needed along 5th Street in the vicinity of the SNRC.
CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b) establishes guidelines for considering
significance of traffic related impacts based on number of project related vehicle miles traveled
(VMT). The circulation network in the project area includes major interstate freeways, regional
highways, and local roadways on which construction personnel and construction vehicles would
travel to access the worksite. Upon completion of construction, the SNRC would employ no more
than 25 people that would commute to and from the facilities. The work force generating VMT
would be minimal. Additionally, VMT generated by delivery trucks hauling food waste to the
SNRC would be replacing VMT that would take the same food waste from the source to a
disposal or other treatment facility.
Conclusion
Impacts associated with the revised SNRC facilities and operations would be consistent with
those described in Section 3.15 of the 2016 EIR. Mitigation Measures TR-1 through TR-5 would
be implemented to reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels and no new mitigation
is required. The Project as revised would remain less than significant with mitigation
incorporated.
Significance Determination
Impacts from construction and operation of the Project modifications are consistent with those
identified in the 2016 EIR. Substantial changes are not proposed in the Project, requiring major
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report: SCH#: 2015101058
Sterling Natural Resource Center 26 ESA / 150005.01
Addendum to the 2016 Final EIR July 2019
revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or
a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects to transportation
and traffic resources. No new information of substantial importance indicates the Project would
have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR nor are significant effects
previously examined substantially more severe than described in the previous EIR.
Wildfire
Summary of Project Impacts in the 2016 EIR
While the 2016 EIR included existing information on vegetation and wildfire hazards in the
vicinity of the SNRC, the 2016 EIR did not address Wildfire as established in the 2019 CEQA
Guidelines. The potential impact of Wildfire due to implementation of the SNRC facilities and
operations is discussed below.
Impact and Mitigation Analysis of Project Modifications
This evaluation focuses on potential public safety and structural hazards impacts regarding
wildfire resulting from the construction and operation of the SNRC facilities.
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Wildfire—If located in or near state responsibility areas or
lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones,
would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risk, and thereby expose project
occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a
wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or
other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that
may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the
environment?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Discussion
The implementation of the SNRC would not interfere with adopted emergency response plans or
evacuation routes, defined by the County of San Bernardino or City of Highland. The facility is
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report: SCH#: 2015101058
Sterling Natural Resource Center 27 ESA / 150005.01
Addendum to the 2016 Final EIR July 2019
located adjacent to major traffic corridors and would not employ more than 25 people during
operations. Additionally, considering the urban environment of asphalt and concrete surrounding
the SNRC, it is very unlikely that a wildfire would occur requiring emergency evacuation.
The SNRC would not be located within the City of Highland’s fire severity zone I or II or
CALFIRE’s high fire severity hazard zone. The area is relatively flat and does not contain steep
slopes. Considering the SNRC would not be located within a fire hazard severity zone, and does
not contain vegetation that increases risk of wildfire, implementation of the SNRC would not
exacerbate the potential for wildfire to start or spread in the area.
Implementation of the SNRC would not result in the installation of new permanent roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources or new power lines and other utilities. All construction must
comply state and local with fire protection and prevention requirements. This includes various
measures such as easy accessibility of firefighting equipment, proper storage of combustible
liquids, no smoking in service and refueling areas, and worker training for firefighter extinguisher
use. Operations of the facilities would also be subject local and state fire prevention requirements.
As described in Hydrology and Water Quality Section of this Addendum, the SNRC site is not
located within the 100-year flood zone. There are no waterbodies in the vicinity of the SNRC.
Conclusion
The revisions to the SNRC facilities and operations would not increase the potential for wildfire
to occur nor would it prevent emergency response or exiting from the facilities during the
unlikely event of a wildfire. The SNRC facilities would be located in an urban environment
surrounded primarily by asphalt and concrete, therefore, impacts related to wildfire are not
expected to occur.
Significance Determination
The revisions to the SNRC facilities and operations would not result in significant impacts
associated with wildfires.
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report: SCH#: 2015101058
Sterling Natural Resource Center 28 ESA / 150005.01
Addendum to the 2016 Final EIR July 2019
SUMMARY
As described in this Addendum, impacts to the environment as a result of the Project
modifications are consistent with and would not create substantial new or increased impacts
beyond those which were evaluated in the 2016 EIR. Substantial changes are not proposed in the
Project requiring major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant
effects. No new information of substantial importance indicates the Project would have one or
more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR nor are significant effects previously
examined substantially more severe than described in the previous EIR. No new mitigation was
identified in this Addendum that would reduce impacts to the environment evaluated in the 2016
EIR. No new mitigation would be required as a result of implementing the Project modifications.
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164 and the Project modification findings
described herein, this Addendum is the appropriate CEQA document. No subsequent EIR is
required.
Appendix A
Revised Air Emissions
Modeling Outputs
Project Characteristics -
Land Use - Ops only
Construction Phase - Ops run
Vehicle Trips - 27 round trip truck trips per day = 54 trips, HHDT only
Primary trip & C-C
Fleet Mix - HHD only
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population
User Defined Industrial 1.00 User Defined Unit 1.00 1,000.00 0
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
10
Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 31
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Southern California Edison
2021Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
702.44 0.029CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0.006N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
EVWD Addendum OPs
South Coast Air Basin, Annual
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/22/2019 10:44 AMPage 1 of 18
EVWD Addendum OPs - South Coast Air Basin, Annual
2.0 Emissions Summary
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblFleetMix HHD 0.03 1.00
tblFleetMix LDA 0.55 0.00
tblFleetMix LDT1 0.04 0.00
tblFleetMix LDT2 0.20 0.00
tblFleetMix LHD1 0.02 0.00
tblFleetMix LHD2 5.8640e-003 0.00
tblFleetMix MCY 4.7660e-003 0.00
tblFleetMix MDV 0.12 0.00
tblFleetMix MH 9.2400e-004 0.00
tblFleetMix MHD 0.02 0.00
tblFleetMix OBUS 2.0590e-003 0.00
tblFleetMix SBUS 7.0600e-004 0.00
tblFleetMix UBUS 1.8660e-003 0.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 0.00 1,000.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.00 1.00
tblVehicleTrips CC_TTP 0.00 100.00
tblVehicleTrips PR_TP 0.00 100.00
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 0.00 54.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/22/2019 10:44 AMPage 2 of 18
EVWD Addendum OPs - South Coast Air Basin, Annual
2.1 Overall Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2019 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Maximum 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2019 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Maximum 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/22/2019 10:44 AMPage 3 of 18
EVWD Addendum OPs - South Coast Air Basin, Annual
2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 4.0800e-
003
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 3.0000e-
005
Energy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Mobile 0.0290 1.1518 0.2233 2.6200e-
003
0.0506 2.5300e-
003
0.0531 0.0139 2.4200e-
003
0.0163 0.0000 257.6515 257.6515 0.0224 0.0000 258.2106
Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0331 1.1518 0.2233 2.6200e-
003
0.0506 2.5300e-
003
0.0531 0.0139 2.4200e-
003
0.0163 0.0000 257.6515 257.6515 0.0224 0.0000 258.2106
Unmitigated Operational
Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)
Highest
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/22/2019 10:44 AMPage 4 of 18
EVWD Addendum OPs - South Coast Air Basin, Annual
2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 4.0800e-
003
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 3.0000e-
005
Energy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Mobile 0.0290 1.1518 0.2233 2.6200e-
003
0.0506 2.5300e-
003
0.0531 0.0139 2.4200e-
003
0.0163 0.0000 257.6515 257.6515 0.0224 0.0000 258.2106
Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0331 1.1518 0.2233 2.6200e-
003
0.0506 2.5300e-
003
0.0531 0.0139 2.4200e-
003
0.0163 0.0000 257.6515 257.6515 0.0224 0.0000 258.2106
Mitigated Operational
3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Arch Coating Architectural Coating 5/22/2019 5/21/2019 5 5
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/22/2019 10:44 AMPage 5 of 18
EVWD Addendum OPs - South Coast Air Basin, Annual
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor
Arch Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Cranes 1 6.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 1 6.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 6.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Welders 3 8.00 46 0.45
Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Arch Coating 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 1,500; Non-Residential Outdoor: 500; Striped Parking Area: 0
(Architectural Coating ±sqft)
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/22/2019 10:44 AMPage 6 of 18
EVWD Addendum OPs - South Coast Air Basin, Annual
3.2 Arch Coating - 2019
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/22/2019 10:44 AMPage 7 of 18
EVWD Addendum OPs - South Coast Air Basin, Annual
4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
3.2 Arch Coating - 2019
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/22/2019 10:44 AMPage 8 of 18
EVWD Addendum OPs - South Coast Air Basin, Annual
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.0290 1.1518 0.2233 2.6200e-
003
0.0506 2.5300e-
003
0.0531 0.0139 2.4200e-
003
0.0163 0.0000 257.6515 257.6515 0.0224 0.0000 258.2106
Unmitigated 0.0290 1.1518 0.2233 2.6200e-
003
0.0506 2.5300e-
003
0.0531 0.0139 2.4200e-
003
0.0163 0.0000 257.6515 257.6515 0.0224 0.0000 258.2106
4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
4.2 Trip Summary Information
4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
User Defined Industrial 54.00 0.00 0.00 117,936 117,936
Total 54.00 0.00 0.00 117,936 117,936
Miles Trip %Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by
User Defined Industrial 16.60 8.40 6.90 0.00 100.00 0.00 100 0 0
4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH
User Defined Industrial 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/22/2019 10:44 AMPage 9 of 18
EVWD Addendum OPs - South Coast Air Basin, Annual
5.0 Energy Detail
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Electricity
Mitigated
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Electricity
Unmitigated
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
NaturalGas
Mitigated
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
NaturalGas
Unmitigated
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/22/2019 10:44 AMPage 10 of 18
EVWD Addendum OPs - South Coast Air Basin, Annual
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
User Defined
Industrial
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Unmitigated
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
User Defined
Industrial
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/22/2019 10:44 AMPage 11 of 18
EVWD Addendum OPs - South Coast Air Basin, Annual
6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
6.0 Area Detail
5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
User Defined
Industrial
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Unmitigated
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
User Defined
Industrial
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/22/2019 10:44 AMPage 12 of 18
EVWD Addendum OPs - South Coast Air Basin, Annual
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 4.0800e-
003
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 3.0000e-
005
Unmitigated 4.0800e-
003
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 3.0000e-
005
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating
4.6000e-
004
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
3.6100e-
003
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 3.0000e-
005
Total 4.0700e-
003
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 3.0000e-
005
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/22/2019 10:44 AMPage 13 of 18
EVWD Addendum OPs - South Coast Air Basin, Annual
7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
7.0 Water Detail
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating
4.6000e-
004
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
3.6100e-
003
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 3.0000e-
005
Total 4.0700e-
003
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 3.0000e-
005
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/22/2019 10:44 AMPage 14 of 18
EVWD Addendum OPs - South Coast Air Basin, Annual
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category MT/yr
Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
User Defined
Industrial
0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/22/2019 10:44 AMPage 15 of 18
EVWD Addendum OPs - South Coast Air Basin, Annual
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
User Defined
Industrial
0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Mitigated
8.0 Waste Detail
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Category/Year
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/22/2019 10:44 AMPage 16 of 18
EVWD Addendum OPs - South Coast Air Basin, Annual
8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
User Defined
Industrial
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Unmitigated
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
User Defined
Industrial
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Mitigated
9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/22/2019 10:44 AMPage 17 of 18
EVWD Addendum OPs - South Coast Air Basin, Annual
11.0 Vegetation
10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type
User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/22/2019 10:44 AMPage 18 of 18
EVWD Addendum OPs - South Coast Air Basin, Annual
Appendix B
SNRC Traffic Study
N:\3098\Report\Letter Report.3098.doc
May 31, 2019
Mr. Jeff Noelte
Director of Engineering and Operations
East Valley Water District
31111 Greenspot Road
Highland, CA 92346
LLG Reference: 3-19-3098
Subject: Sterling Natural Resource Center, Transportation Impact
Analysis
Dear Jeff:
Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG) has prepared this technical letter report
to document an analysis of potential traffic-related impacts associated with an
addendum to the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) previously prepared for the
proposed Sterling Natural Resource Center project.
Included in this analysis are the following:
Project Description
Study Area Description
Analysis Methodology
Existing Intersections Operations
Trip Generation Summary
Near-Term Intersection Operations
Conclusions
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District (Valley District) has developed
plans to construct the Sterling Natural Resource Center (Project) in the City of
Highland that would treat wastewater generated in the East Valley Water District
(EVWD) service area for beneficial reuse in the upper Santa Ana River watershed. In
addition to the Sterling Natural Resource Center (SNRC) facilities, the Project
included modifications to EVWD’s wastewater collection facilities in order to convey
flows to the SNRC, and construction of a treated water conveyance and discharge
system. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Project was certified in
March of 2016.
Mr. Jeff Noelte
May 31, 2019
Page 2
N:\3098\Report\Letter Report.3098.doc
The SNRC would be constructed on two parcels between 5th Avenue and 6th Avenue
that are divided by N. Del Rosa Drive in the City of Highland.
Figure 1 provides a vicinity map with Figure 2 depicting a more detailed project area
map.
Since the certification of the EIR, the operations and facility design at the SNRC have
been modified. Modifications to the SNRC would allow for the addition of upto 27
trucks per day of liquid food waste for processing, and a 2-acre easterly
expansion of the facilities to allow for an improved layout of treatment processes.
The potential impact of the additional truck traffic is subject of this analysis.
STUDY AREA AND EXISTING CONDITIONS
The study area for the analysis was determined based on the traffic route expected to
be utilized by the additional trucks. The route is expected to principally be 5th Street
to S. Tippecanoe Avenue to Interstate 10 (I-10). Trucks would enter the site from 5th
Street, just east of N. Del Rosa Drive, and exit the site to N. Del Rosa Drive, just
north of 5th Street. The expected truck route is shown on Figure 5.
Based on the anticipated truck route, the following intersections were selected for
analysis:
1. Tippecanoe Avenue / 5th Street
2. Del Rosa Drive / 5th Street
3. Tippecanoe Avenue / 3rd Street
4. Tippecanoe Avenue / San Bernardino Avenue
5. Tippecanoe Avenue / I-10 WB Ramps
6. Tippecanoe Avenue / I-10 EB Ramps
Figure 3 details the existing conditions diagram, including intersection control type and
lane configurations.
Existing weekday AM and PM peak hour (7:00-9:00 AM and 4:00-6:00 PM) traffic
volume counts were commissioned at the study area intersections on Thursday, May
9, 2019. Attachment A contains the intersection count sheets.
Figure 4 shows the Existing Traffic Volumes.
Mr. Jeff Noelte
May 31, 2019
Page 3
N:\3098\Report\Letter Report.3098.doc
ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY & SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
The following scenarios are addressed in this analysis:
Existing
Existing + Project
Existing + Cumulative Projects
Existing + Cumulative Projects + Project
Based on information from the City of San Bernardino Traffic Impact Study Guidelines
dated September 20, 2004, cumulative projects traffic volumes were estimated using an
annual growth factor of three (3) percent per year for two (2) years, for a total of six (6)
percent. It is expected that the Project will be operational within two years. This growth
factor was applied to the Existing traffic volumes.
Level of service (LOS) is the term used to denote the different operating conditions
which occur on a given roadway segment under various traffic volume loads. It is a
qualitative measure used to describe a quantitative analysis taking into account
factors such as roadway geometries, signal phasing, speed, travel delay, freedom to
maneuver, and safety. Level of service provides an index to the operational qualities
of an intersection. Level of service designations range from A to F, with LOS A
representing the best operating conditions and LOS F representing the worst
operating conditions. Level of service designation is reported differently for
signalized and unsignalized intersections.
In this analysis, signalized intersections were analyzed under AM and PM peak hour
conditions. Average vehicle delay was determined utilizing the methodology found in
the most recent version of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), with the assistance
of the Synchro (version 10) computer software. The delay values (represented in
seconds) were qualified with a corresponding intersection LOS.
Based on information from the City of Highland General Plan, March 2006, the
Circulation Element establishes that the LOS should be LOS D or better for major
intersections in the City. For peak operating periods, LOS D is considered acceptable.
Any intersection operating at LOS E or F is considered deficient.
Mr. Jeff Noelte
May 31, 2019
Page 4
N:\3098\Report\Letter Report.3098.doc
EXISTING INTERSECTION OPERATIONS
Table 1 summarizes the existing intersection operations. As seen in Table 1, the
intersections are all calculated to currently operate acceptably at LOS D or better
during the AM and PM peak hours. Attachment B contains the intersection analysis
worksheets.
TABLE 1
EXISTING INTERSECTION OPERATIONS
Intersection Control
Type
Peak
Hour
Existing
Delaya LOSb
1. Tippecanoe Ave & 5th St Signal AM 11.0 B
PM 12.2 B
2. Del Rosa Dr & 5th St Signal AM 9.2 A
PM 10.0 A
3. Tippecanoe Ave & 3rd St Signal AM 21.0 C
PM 31.9 C
4. Tippecanoe Ave & San Bernardino
Ave
Signal AM 25.0 C
PM 39.5 D
5. Tippecanoe Ave & I-10 WB Ramps Signal AM 22.5 C
PM 42.0 D
6. Anderson St & I-10 EB Ramps Signal AM 14.9 B
PM 23.9 C
Footnotes:
a. Average delay expressed in seconds per vehicle.
b. Level of Service.
SIGNALIZED
DELAY/LOS THRESHOLDS
Delay LOS
0.0 ≤ 10.0 A
10.1 to 20.0 B
20.1 to 35.0 C
35.1 to 55.0 D
55.1 to 80.0 E
≥ 80.1 F
Mr. Jeff Noelte
May 31, 2019
Page 5
N:\3098\Report\Letter Report.3098.doc
TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY
As noted, an additional 27 trucks per day are proposed to access the site. The trucks
are assumed to access the site consistently over an 8-hour workday (approximately 3
per hour). A Passenger Car Equivalence (PCE) of 3.0 was applied to account for the
diminished performance characteristics of heavy trucks in traffic flow (as compared to
passenger vehicles) based on data contained in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM)
and the City of San Bernardino Traffic Impact Study Guidelines dated September 20,
2004.
Based on the above methodology, the additional trucks are calculated to generate 162
ADT with 20 total AM peak hour trips (10 inbound/ 10 outbound) and 20 total PM
peak hour trips (10 inbound/ 10 outbound). Table 2 summarizes the trip generation
calculations.
The trips were distributed to the roadway network based on the anticipated truck route.
Figure 5 shows the Project traffic volumes.
TABLE 2
PROPOSED PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
Number and
Type of Trips
Daily Trips AM Peak Hour
(w/PCE)
PM Peak Hour
(w/PCE)
ADT PCE PCE
Adjusted ADT In Out Total In Out Total
27 Heavy Duty
Trucks 54 3.0 162 10 10 20 10 10 20
Total Trips: 162 10 10 20 10 10 20
Footnotes:
a. These AM/PM peak hour trips are assumed to be the ADT divided by an 8-hour work day (average distribution) with AM splits as
50:50 (In:Out) and PM splits as 50:50 (In:Out).
b. Passenger-Car Equivalent of 3.0 based on “rolling” terrain
Mr. Jeff Noelte
May 31, 2019
Page 6
N:\3098\Report\Letter Report.3098.doc
NEAR-TERM INTERSECTION OPERATIONS
Existing + Project Operations
Figure 6 shows the Existing + Project traffic volumes.
Table 3 summarizes the intersection operations with the addition of Project traffic. As
seen in Table 3, the intersections are calculated to continue to operate acceptably at
LOS D or better. Attachment B contains the intersection analysis worksheets.
Existing + Cumulative Projects Operations
Figure 7 shows the Existing + Cumulative Project traffic volumes.
Table 3 summarizes the intersection operations with the addition of Cumulative
Project traffic. As seen in Table 3, the intersections are calculated to continue to
operate acceptably at LOS D or better. Attachment B contains the intersection
analysis worksheets.
Existing + Cumulative Projects + Project Operations
Figure 8 shows the Existing + Project + Cumulative Projects traffic volumes.
Table 3 summarizes the intersection operations with the addition of Cumulative
Projects and Project traffic. As seen in Table 3, the intersections are calculated to
continue to operate acceptably at LOS D or better. Attachment B contains the
intersection analysis worksheets.
N:\3098\Report\Letter Report.3098.doc
TABLE 3
NEAR-TERM INTERSECTION OPERATIONS
Intersection Control
Type
Peak
Hour
Existing Existing + Project Existing +
Cumulative
Existing + Project +
Cumulative Significant
Impact? Delaya LOSb Delay LOS Δc Delay LOS Delay LOS Δc
1. Tippecanoe Ave & 5th St Signal AM 11.0 B 11.0 B 0.0 11.3 B 11.3 B 0.0 No
PM 12.2 B 12.3 B 0.1 12.8 B 12.8 B 0.0 No
2. Del Rosa Dr & 5th St Signal AM 9.2 A 9.3 A 0.1 9.3 A 9.4 A 0.1 No
PM 10.0 A 10.1 B 0.1 10.2 B 10.2 B 0.0 No
3. Tippecanoe Ave & 3rd St Signal AM 21.0 C 21.2 C 0.2 24.5 C 24.8 C 0.3 No
PM 31.9 C 32.5 C 0.6 36.2 D 37.2 D 1.0 No
4. Tippecanoe Ave & San
Bernardino Ave
Signal AM 25.0 C 25.1 C 0.1 26.5 C 26.6 C 0.1 No
PM 39.5 D 39.9 D 0.4 45.0 D 45.5 D 0.5 No
5. Tippecanoe Ave & I-10
WB Ramps
Signal AM 22.5 C 22.6 C 0.1 23.4 C 23.5 C 0.1 No
PM 42.0 D 42.4 D 0.4 46.5 D 47.1 D 0.6 No
6. Tippecanoe Ave & I-10
EB Ramps
Signal AM 14.9 B 15.0 B 0.1 15.7 B 15.8 B 0.1 No
PM 23.9 C 24.1 C 0.2 26.3 C 26.6 C 0.3 No
Footnotes:
a. Average delay expressed in seconds per vehicle.
b. Level of Service
c. Δ denotes the increase in delay due to Project or Cumulative Projects traffic.
SIGNALIZED
DELAY/LOS THRESHOLDS
Delay LOS
0.0 ≤ 10.0 A
10.1 to 20.0 B
20.1 to 35.0 C
35.1 to 55.0 D
55.1 to 80.0 E
≥ 80.1 F
Mr. Jeff Noelte
May 31, 2019
Page 8
N:\3098\Report\Letter Report.3098.doc
CONCLUSIONS
The proposed additional 27 trucks per day are calculated to generate 162 ADT with 20
total AM peak hour trips (10 inbound/ 10 outbound) and 20 total PM peak hour trips
(10 inbound/ 10 outbound). Based on the analysis presented in this study, the Project
would not cause or result in significant impacts at any of the study area intersections, and
therefore, mitigation measures would not be necessary. No degradation in LOS (other
than from LOS A to LOS B at one intersection) is calculated as a result of the additional
truck trips.
Sincerely,
Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers
John Boarman, P.E. Amelia Giacalone
Principal Transportation Planner III
cc: File
Attachments: Figure 1: Project Vicinity Map
Figure 2: Project Area Map
Figure 3: Existing Conditions Diagram
Figure 4: Existing Traffic Volumes
Figure 5: Project Traffic Volumes
Figure 6: Existing + Project Traffic Volumes
Figure 7: Existing + Cumulative Projects Traffic Volumes
Figure 8: Existing + Cumulative Projects + Project Traffic Volumes
Attachment A: Existing Traffic Counts
Attachment B: Intersection Analysis Worksheets
Figure 1
Sterling Natural Resource Center
N:\3098\FiguresDate: 05/30/19
Project Vicinity Map
Project
Site
Map
Project Area Map
Figure 2N:\3098\FiguresDate: 05/29/19
Sterling Natural Resource Center
Project Site
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(6
5
4
3
21
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
Ï
OO
E. 3rd St
W. 5th St
Harriman Pl
I-10 EB Rmps
I-10 WB Rmps
W. 5th St
6
5
4
3
2
1
§¨10
Anderson
St
S.
Tippecanoe
Ave
E.San Bernardino Ave
E.3rd St
W.5th St
Tippecanoe
Ave
N.
Del
Rosa
Dr
Project
Site
E. Sn Brnardno AveE. Orange Show Rd
Ti
p
p
e
c
a
n
o
e
A
v
e
Ti
p
p
e
c
a
n
o
e
A
v
e
S.
T
i
p
p
e
c
a
n
o
e
A
v
e
S.
T
i
p
p
e
c
a
n
o
e
A
v
e
S.
T
i
p
p
e
c
a
n
o
e
A
v
e
N.
D
e
l
R
o
s
a
D
r
Harriman Pl
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
E.Orange Show Rd
Figure 3
Sterling Natural Resource Center
N:\3098\FiguresDate: 05/29/19
Existing Conditions Diagram
40
40
Intersection Control
D / U Divided / Undivided Roadway
#Number of Travel Lanes
Turn Lane Configurations
Study Intersections
Posted Speed Limit
Two-Way Left Turn Lane
XX
Bike Lanes
2U 4U 404U
40
4U
40
4D
454U 454U
502U
402U
40
4U
40
6D
6U
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(6
5
4
3
21
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
Ï
OO
2 / 8
6
/
2
4
15 / 7
8
/
2
5
81 / 52
14
/
1
7
15
/
3
3
18 / 28
22
/
3
5
24 / 29
26 / 19
31 / 46
32 / 46
33
/
3
1
36
/
4
0
36
/
7
0
39 / 61
59
/
2
2
40 / 30
43
/
3
8
43
/
5
4
45 / 56
51
/
6
1
54 / 71
54
/
9
8
55 / 67
84 / 148
97 / 142
77
/
1
0
1
47 / 160
66
/
1
7
1
76 / 389
279 / 112
113 / 433
86
6
/
7
1
1
10
6
/
2
0
4
130 / 123
13
8
/
3
1
9
150 / 228
15
8
/
5
4
5
169 / 538
18
1
/
3
3
9
187 / 696
19
2
/
6
7
1
192 / 674
218 / 258
24
1
/
5
2
2
252 / 106
26
3
/
5
3
0
29
4
/
4
1
5
30
0
/
1
7
4
314 / 199
36
8
/
6
3
0
389 / 289
43
4
/
3
3
3
48
1
/
3
3
3
51
2
/
6
8
8
552 / 214
55
7
/
6
4
3
566 / 235
590 / 433
595 / 328
74
7
/
6
4
8
76
5
/
1
,
1
6
7
65
5
/
1
,
1
5
6
E. 3rd St
W. 5th St
Harriman Pl
I-10 EB Rmps
I-10 WB Rmps
W. 5th St
6
5
4
3
2
1
Existing Traffic Volumes
Sterling Natural Resource Center
Figure 4N:\3098\Figures
Date: 05/30/19
§¨10
Anderson St
S. Tippecanoe Ave
E. San Bernardino Ave
E. 3rd St
W. 5th St
Tippecanoe Ave
N. Del Rosa Dr
[
Project
Site
E. Sn Brnardno AveE. Orange Show Rd
Ti
p
p
e
c
a
n
o
e
A
v
e
Ti
p
p
e
c
a
n
o
e
A
v
e
S.
T
i
p
p
e
c
a
n
o
e
A
v
e
S.
T
i
p
p
e
c
a
n
o
e
A
v
e
S.
T
i
p
p
e
c
a
n
o
e
A
v
e
N.
D
e
l
R
o
s
a
D
r
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Harriman Pl
AM / PM IntersectionPeak Hour VolumesAM / PM
Study Intersections!!#
Average DailyTraffic VolumesX,XXX
E. Orange Show Rd
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(6
5
4
3
21
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
Ï
OO
5 / 5
10
/
1
0
5
/
5
10 / 10
10
/
1
0
10
/
1
0
5 / 5
10
/
1
0
10
/
1
0
5
/
5
10
/
1
0
10 / 10
10
/
1
0
E. 3rd St
W. 5th St
Harriman Pl
I-10 EB Rmps
I-10 WB Rmps
W. 5th St
6
5
4
3
2
1
Project Traffic Volumes
Sterling Natural Resource Center
Figure 5N:\3098\Figures
Date: 05/30/19
Anderson St
E. San Bernardino Ave
E. 3rd St
W. 5th St
Tippecanoe Ave
N. Del Rosa Dr
[
Project
Site
E. Sn Brnardno AveE. Orange Show Rd
Ti
p
p
e
c
a
n
o
e
A
v
e
Ti
p
p
e
c
a
n
o
e
A
v
e
S.
T
i
p
p
e
c
a
n
o
e
A
v
e
S.
T
i
p
p
e
c
a
n
o
e
A
v
e
S.
T
i
p
p
e
c
a
n
o
e
A
v
e
N.
D
e
l
R
o
s
a
D
r
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Harriman Pl
E. Orange Show Rd
!(4
!(3
!(6
!(5
!(1 !(2
§¨10
AM / PM IntersectionPeak Hour VolumesAM / PM
Study Intersections!!#
Inbound Truck Route
Outbound Truck Route
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(6
5
4
3
21
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
Ï
OO
2 / 8
6
/
2
4
15 / 7
81 / 52
14
/
1
7
15
/
3
3
18 / 28
18
/
3
5
22
/
3
5
24 / 29
31 / 46
32 / 46
33
/
3
1
36 / 29
36
/
4
0
36
/
7
0
39 / 61
69
/
3
2
40 / 30
43
/
3
8
43
/
5
4
45 / 56
51
/
6
1
54 / 71
54
/
9
8
65 / 77
84 / 148
97 / 142
77
/
1
0
1
47 / 160
66
/
1
7
1
76 / 389
279 / 112
113 / 433
86
6
/
7
1
1
10
6
/
2
0
4
130 / 123
13
8
/
3
1
9
150 / 228
15
8
/
5
4
5
169 / 538
18
1
/
3
3
9
187 / 696
192 / 674
19
7
/
6
7
6
218 / 258
25
1
/
5
3
2
252 / 106
26
3
/
5
3
0
29
4
/
4
1
5
30
0
/
1
7
4
314 / 199
36
8
/
6
3
0
394 / 294
44
4
/
3
4
3
48
1
/
3
3
3
52
2
/
6
9
8
552 / 214
566 / 235
56
7
/
6
5
3
595 / 328
595 / 438
75
2
/
6
5
3
77
5
/
1
,
1
7
7
65
5
/
1
,
1
5
6
E. 3rd St
W. 5th St
Harriman Pl
I-10 EB Rmps
I-10 WB Rmps
W. 5th St
6
5
4
3
2
1
Existing + Project Traffic Volumes
Sterling Natural Resource Center
Figure 6N:\3098\Figures
Date: 05/30/19
§¨10
Anderson St
S. Tippecanoe Ave
E. San Bernardino Ave
E. 3rd St
W. 5th St
Tippecanoe Ave
N. Del Rosa Dr
[
Project
Site
E. Sn Brnardno AveE. Orange Show Rd
Ti
p
p
e
c
a
n
o
e
A
v
e
Ti
p
p
e
c
a
n
o
e
A
v
e
S.
T
i
p
p
e
c
a
n
o
e
A
v
e
S.
T
i
p
p
e
c
a
n
o
e
A
v
e
S.
T
i
p
p
e
c
a
n
o
e
A
v
e
N.
D
e
l
R
o
s
a
D
r
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Harriman Pl
AM / PM IntersectionPeak Hour VolumesAM / PM
Study Intersections!!#
E. Orange Show Rd
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(6
5
4
3
21
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
Ï
OO
2 / 8
8
/
2
7
16 / 7
6
/
2
5
15
/
1
8
16
/
3
5
19 / 30
23
/
3
7
25 / 31
28 / 20
33 / 49
34 / 49
35
/
3
3
38
/
4
2
38
/
7
4
41 / 65
42 / 32
46
/
4
0
46
/
5
7
48 / 59
54
/
6
5
57 / 75
58 / 71
63
/
2
3
86 / 55
89 / 157
50 / 170
57
/
1
0
4
70
/
1
8
1
81 / 412
82
/
1
0
7
20
4
/
7
1
1
296 / 119
11
2
/
2
1
6
333 / 211
267 / 112
159 / 242
16
7
/
5
7
8
179 / 570
19
2
/
3
5
9
198 / 738
14
6
/
3
3
8
204 / 714
231 / 273
25
5
/
5
5
3
138 / 130
27
9
/
5
6
2
120 / 459
31
2
/
4
4
0
31
8
/
1
8
4
103 / 151
39
0
/
6
6
8
412 / 306
46
0
/
3
5
3
51
0
/
3
5
3
54
3
/
7
2
9
585 / 227
59
0
/
6
8
2
600 / 249
625 / 459
631 / 348
79
2
/
6
8
7
91
8
/
7
5
4
81
1
/
1
,
2
3
7
69
4
/
1
,
2
2
5
E. 3rd St
W. 5th St
Harriman Pl
I-10 EB Rmps
I-10 WB Rmps
W. 5th St
6
5
4
3
2
1
Existing + Cumulative Projects Traffic Volumes
Sterling Natural Resource Center
Figure 7N:\3098\Figures
Date: 05/30/19
§¨10
Anderson St
S. Tippecanoe Ave
E. San Bernardino Ave
E. 3rd St
W. 5th St
Tippecanoe Ave
N. Del Rosa Dr
[
Project
Site
E. Sn Brnardno AveE. Orange Show Rd
Ti
p
p
e
c
a
n
o
e
A
v
e
Ti
p
p
e
c
a
n
o
e
A
v
e
S.
T
i
p
p
e
c
a
n
o
e
A
v
e
S.
T
i
p
p
e
c
a
n
o
e
A
v
e
S.
T
i
p
p
e
c
a
n
o
e
A
v
e
N.
D
e
l
R
o
s
a
D
r
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Harriman Pl
AM / PM IntersectionPeak Hour VolumesAM / PM
Study Intersections!!#
E. Orange Show Rd
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(6
5
4
3
21
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
Ï
OO
2 / 8
6
/
2
5
16 / 7
15
/
1
8
16
/
3
5
18
/
3
7
19 / 30
23
/
3
7
25 / 31
33 / 49
34 / 49
35
/
3
3
38 / 30
38
/
4
2
38
/
7
4
41 / 65
42 / 32
46
/
4
0
46
/
5
7
48 / 59
54
/
6
5
57 / 75
68 / 81
73
/
3
3
86 / 55
89 / 157
50 / 170
57
/
1
0
4
70
/
1
8
1
81 / 412
82
/
1
0
7
267 / 112
296 / 119
11
2
/
2
1
6
417 / 311
333 / 211
159 / 242
16
7
/
5
7
8
179 / 570
19
2
/
3
5
9
198 / 738
204 / 714
20
9
/
7
1
6
231 / 273
26
5
/
5
6
3
14
6
/
3
3
8
27
9
/
5
6
2
120 / 459
31
2
/
4
4
0
31
8
/
1
8
4
138 / 130
39
0
/
6
6
8
103 / 151
47
0
/
3
6
3
51
0
/
3
5
3
55
3
/
7
3
9
585 / 227
600 / 249
60
0
/
6
9
2
630 / 464
631 / 348
79
7
/
6
9
2
91
8
/
7
5
4
82
1
/
1
,
2
4
7
69
4
/
1
,
2
2
5
E. 3rd St
W. 5th St
Harriman Pl
I-10 EB Rmps
I-10 WB Rmps
W. 5th St
6
5
4
3
2
1
Existing + Cumulative Projects + Project Traffic Volumes
Sterling Natural Resource Center
Figure 8N:\3098\Figures
Date: 05/30/19
§¨10
Anderson St
S. Tippecanoe Ave
E. San Bernardino Ave
E. 3rd St
W. 5th St
Tippecanoe Ave
N. Del Rosa Dr
[
Project
Site
E. Sn Brnardno AveE. Orange Show Rd
Ti
p
p
e
c
a
n
o
e
A
v
e
Ti
p
p
e
c
a
n
o
e
A
v
e
S.
T
i
p
p
e
c
a
n
o
e
A
v
e
S.
T
i
p
p
e
c
a
n
o
e
A
v
e
S.
T
i
p
p
e
c
a
n
o
e
A
v
e
N.
D
e
l
R
o
s
a
D
r
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Harriman Pl
AM / PM IntersectionPeak Hour VolumesAM / PM
Study Intersections!!#
E. Orange Show Rd
N:\3098\Report\Letter Report.3098.doc
Attachment A
Existing Traffic Counts
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
ID:19-06067-001 Day:
City:San Bernardino Date:
AM 43 481 22 0
AM
NOON 0000 NOON
PM 38 333 35 0
PM
AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
0210 1 29024
1 112 0 279
000 0119026
54071 1 TEV 1394 0 1751 0 000
113 0 433 1 PHF 0.83 0.93
45056 1 0120
AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
PM 0 70 530 25
PM
NOON 0000NOON
AM 0 36 263 8
AM
W
5
t
h
S
t
07:00 AM - 09:00 AM
NONE
358 0 220
Tippecanoe Ave
552
0
Tippecanoe Ave
SOUTHBOUND
04:00 PM - 06:00 PM
NORTHBOUND
493
0
PE
A
K
H
O
U
R
S
Total Vehicles (AM)
NONE
04:45 PM - 05:45 PM
341
630
0
Signalized
W
5
t
h
S
t
EA
S
T
B
O
U
N
D
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
408
Total Vehicles (PM) Bikes (PM)
Tippecanoe Ave & W 5th St
Thursday
05/09/2019
CONTROL WE
S
T
B
O
U
N
D
07:00 AM - 08:00 AM
Total Vehicles (Noon)
Pedestrians (Crosswalks)
Bikes (NOON)
143
CO
U
N
T
P
E
R
I
O
D
S
Bikes (AM)
NOONAM PM
0
6
1
0 0 0 0 0 1
0 1 3 0 0
0 0
0 0
1 0 0 3 0 0
PM
AM
AM
NOON
PM
PM
NOON
AM
AM
NOON
PM
NOON
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0 0
0 3 0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
26
279
24
45
113
54
43 48
1
22
36 26
3
8
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
19
112
29
56
433
71
38 33
3
35
70 53
0
25
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0 0
0 0 0
NO
O
N
PM AM NO
O
N
AM
PM
NO
O
N
AM
PMNO
O
N
PM AM
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
ID:19-06067-002 Day:
City:San Bernardino Date:
AM 59 300 15 0
AM
NOON 0000 NOON
PM 22 174 33 0
PM
AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
0200 0 30040
2 106 0 252
000 007015
55067 0 TEV 1031 0 1236 0 000
76 0 389 2 PHF 0.80 0.95
18028 0 0020
AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
PM 0 17 339 24
PM
NOON 0000NOON
AM 0 14 181 6
AM
W
5
t
h
S
t
07:00 AM - 09:00 AM
NONE
325 0 145
Del Rosa Dr
333
0
Del Rosa Dr
SOUTHBOUND
04:00 PM - 06:00 PM
NORTHBOUND
446
0
PE
A
K
H
O
U
R
S
Total Vehicles (AM)
NONE
04:45 PM - 05:45 PM
276
436
0
Signalized
W
5
t
h
S
t
EA
S
T
B
O
U
N
D
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
209
Total Vehicles (PM) Bikes (PM)
Del Rosa Dr & W 5th St
Thursday
05/09/2019
CONTROL WE
S
T
B
O
U
N
D
07:00 AM - 08:00 AM
Total Vehicles (Noon)
Pedestrians (Crosswalks)
Bikes (NOON)
97
CO
U
N
T
P
E
R
I
O
D
S
Bikes (AM)
NOONAM PM
1
0
5
1 0 0 1 0 1
0 3 1 0 0
0 0
0 2
1 0 1 6 0 3
PM
AM
AM
NOON
PM
PM
NOON
AM
AM
NOON
PM
NOON
0
1
0
0
0
2
0 1 0
0 1 0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
15
252
40
18
76
55
59 30
0
15
14 18
1
6
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
7
106
30
28
389
67
22 17
4
33
17 33
9
24
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 1 0
0 1 0
NO
O
N
PM AM NO
O
N
AM
PM
NO
O
N
AM
PMNO
O
N
PM AM
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
ID:19-06067-003 Day:
City:San Bernardino Date:
AM 33 434 36 0
AM
NOON 0000 NOON
PM 31 333 40 0
PM
AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
0210 1 46032
2 235 0 566
000 02199 0 314
31046 1 TEV 2119 0 2786 0 000
192 0 674 2 PHF 0.88 0.88
39061 0 0121
AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
PM 0 54 522 545
PM
NOON 0000NOON
AM 0 43 241 158
AM
E
3
R
d
S
t
07:00 AM - 09:00 AM
NONE
642 0 320
N Tippecanoe Ave
787
0
N Tippecanoe Ave
SOUTHBOUND
04:00 PM - 06:00 PM
NORTHBOUND
1259
0
PE
A
K
H
O
U
R
S
Total Vehicles (AM)
NONE
04:30 PM - 05:30 PM
304
614
0
Signalized
E
3
R
d
S
t
EA
S
T
B
O
U
N
D
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
593
Total Vehicles (PM) Bikes (PM)
N Tippecanoe Ave & E 3Rd St
Thursday
05/09/2019
CONTROL WE
S
T
B
O
U
N
D
07:15 AM - 08:15 AM
Total Vehicles (Noon)
Pedestrians (Crosswalks)
Bikes (NOON)
386
CO
U
N
T
P
E
R
I
O
D
S
Bikes (AM)
NOONAM PM
0
0
1
2 1 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 0 0
0 0
0 1
2 0 0 1 0 3
PM
AM
AM
NOON
PM
PM
NOON
AM
AM
NOON
PM
NOON
0
0
1
0
0
0
0 0 0
0 0 1
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
314
566
32
39
192
31
33 43
4
36
43 24
1
15
8
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
199
235
46
61
674
46
31 33
3
40
54 52
2
54
5
0
1
0
0
0
0
0 1 1
0 0 1
NO
O
N
PM AM NO
O
N
AM
PM
NO
O
N
AM
PMNO
O
N
PM AM
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
ID:19-06067-004 Day:
City:San Bernardino Date:
AM 51 557 106 0
AM
NOON 0000 NOON
PM 61 643 204 0
PM
AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
0220 0 142 0 97
2 258 0 218
104 0152081
84 0 148 1 TEV 2137 0 3060 0 000
169 0 538 2 PHF 0.85 0.93
130 0 123 0 0120
AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
PM 0 101 688 98
PM
NOON 0000NOON
AM 0 77 512 54
AM
E
S
a
n
B
e
r
n
a
r
d
i
n
o
A
v
e
07:00 AM - 09:00 AM
NONE
347 0 424
S Tippecanoe Ave
768
0
S Tippecanoe Ave
SOUTHBOUND
04:00 PM - 06:00 PM
NORTHBOUND
840
0
PE
A
K
H
O
U
R
S
Total Vehicles (AM)
NONE
04:45 PM - 05:45 PM
693
978
0
Signalized
E
S
a
n
B
e
r
n
a
r
d
i
n
o
A
v
e
EA
S
T
B
O
U
N
D
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
818
Total Vehicles (PM) Bikes (PM)
S Tippecanoe Ave & E San Bernardino Ave
Thursday
05/09/2019
CONTROL WE
S
T
B
O
U
N
D
07:15 AM - 08:15 AM
Total Vehicles (Noon)
Pedestrians (Crosswalks)
Bikes (NOON)
329
CO
U
N
T
P
E
R
I
O
D
S
Bikes (AM)
NOONAM PM
0
2
0
0 0 0 8 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
PM
AM
AM
NOON
PM
PM
NOON
AM
AM
NOON
PM
NOON
0
1
0
1
0
0
0 0 0
0 0 0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
81
218
97
130
169
84
51 55
7
10
6
77 51
2
54
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
52
258
142
123
538
148
61 64
3
20
4
10
1
68
8
98
0
0
0
1
6
0
0 1 0
1 0 0
NO
O
N
PM AM NO
O
N
AM
PM
NO
O
N
AM
PMNO
O
N
PM AM
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
ID:19-06067-005 Day:
City:San Bernardino Date:
AM 66 765 0 0
AM
NOON 0000 NOON
PM 171 1167 0 0
PM
AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
0.5 3.5 0 0 1.5 289 0 389
0.5 228 0 150
004 02214 0 552
47 0 160 1 TEV 3409 0 4526 0 000
000 0 PHF 0.90 0.91
187 0 696 2 0231
AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
PM 0 319 648 630
PM
NOON 0000NOON
AM 0 138 747 368
AM
Ha
r
r
i
m
a
n
P
l
/
I
-
1
0
W
B
R
a
m
p
s
07:00 AM - 09:00 AM
NONE
354 0 722
S Tippecanoe Ave
1504
0
S Tippecanoe Ave
SOUTHBOUND
04:00 PM - 06:00 PM
NORTHBOUND
630
0
PE
A
K
H
O
U
R
S
Total Vehicles (AM)
NONE
04:30 PM - 05:30 PM
1183
1097
0
Signalized
Ha
r
r
i
m
a
n
P
l
/
I
-
1
0
W
B
R
a
m
p
s
EA
S
T
B
O
U
N
D
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
2077
Total Vehicles (PM) Bikes (PM)
S Tippecanoe Ave & Harriman Pl/I-10 WB Ramps
Thursday
05/09/2019
CONTROL WE
S
T
B
O
U
N
D
07:15 AM - 08:15 AM
Total Vehicles (Noon)
Pedestrians (Crosswalks)
Bikes (NOON)
368
CO
U
N
T
P
E
R
I
O
D
S
Bikes (AM)
NOONAM PM
0
2
0
4 2 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 1 1 0 5
PM
AM
AM
NOON
PM
PM
NOON
AM
AM
NOON
PM
NOON
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0 0
1 0 0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
552
150
389
187
0
47
66 76
5
0
13
8
74
7
36
8
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
214
228
289
696
0
160
17
1
11
6
7
0
31
9
64
8
63
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 2 0
0 2 0
NO
O
N
PM AM NO
O
N
AM
PM
NO
O
N
AM
PMNO
O
N
PM AM
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
ID:19-06067-006 Day:
City:San Bernardino Date:
AM 430 1057 0 0
AM
NOON 0000 NOON
PM 684 1379 0 0
PM
AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
1400 0 000
0 000
000 00000
000 0 TEV 2753 0 3658 0 000
000 0 PHF 0.96 0.93
000 0 0020
AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
PM 0 0 1595 0
PM
NOON 0000NOON
AM 0 0 1266 0
AM
I-
1
0
W
B
O
n
-
R
a
m
p
07:00 AM - 09:00 AM
NONE
430 0 684
S Tippecanoe Ave
1057
0
S Tippecanoe Ave
SOUTHBOUND
04:00 PM - 06:00 PM
NORTHBOUND
0
0
PE
A
K
H
O
U
R
S
Total Vehicles (AM)
NONE
04:30 PM - 05:30 PM
1266
1595
0
No Control
I-
1
0
W
B
O
n
-
R
a
m
p
EA
S
T
B
O
U
N
D
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
1379
Total Vehicles (PM) Bikes (PM)
S Tippecanoe Ave & I-10 WB On-Ramp
Thursday
05/09/2019
CONTROL WE
S
T
B
O
U
N
D
07:30 AM - 08:30 AM
Total Vehicles (Noon)
Pedestrians (Crosswalks)
Bikes (NOON)
0
CO
U
N
T
P
E
R
I
O
D
S
Bikes (AM)
NOONAM PM
0
0
0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0
5 0 1 1 0 1
PM
AM
AM
NOON
PM
PM
NOON
AM
AM
NOON
PM
NOON
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0 0
0 0 0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
0
0
0
0
0
0
43
0
10
5
7
0
0 12
6
6
0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
0
0
0
0
0
0
68
4
13
7
9
0
0 15
9
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 1 0
0 0 0
NO
O
N
PM AM NO
O
N
AM
PM
NO
O
N
AM
PMNO
O
N
PM AM
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
ID:19-06067-007 Day:
City:San Bernardino Date:
AM 0 866 192 0
AM
NOON 0000 NOON
PM 0 711 671 0
PM
AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
0220 0 000
0 000
000 00000
590 0 433 1.5 TEV 3194 0 3722 0 000
208 0.5 PHF 0.94 0.97
595 0 328 2 0021
AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
PM 0 0 1156 415
PM
NOON 0000NOON
AM 0 0 655 294
AM
I-
1
0
E
B
R
a
m
p
s
07:00 AM - 09:00 AM
NONE
000
Anderson St
1461
0
Anderson St
SOUTHBOUND
04:00 PM - 06:00 PM
NORTHBOUND
1094
0
PE
A
K
H
O
U
R
S
Total Vehicles (AM)
NONE
04:30 PM - 05:30 PM
1245
1589
0
Signalized
I-
1
0
E
B
R
a
m
p
s
EA
S
T
B
O
U
N
D
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
1039
Total Vehicles (PM) Bikes (PM)
Anderson St & I-10 EB Ramps
Thursday
05/09/2019
CONTROL WE
S
T
B
O
U
N
D
07:15 AM - 08:15 AM
Total Vehicles (Noon)
Pedestrians (Crosswalks)
Bikes (NOON)
488
CO
U
N
T
P
E
R
I
O
D
S
Bikes (AM)
NOONAM PM
0
2
0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 1
0 0
3 0 2 1 0 1
PM
AM
AM
NOON
PM
PM
NOON
AM
AM
NOON
PM
NOON
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0 0
0 1 0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
0
0
0
595
2
590
0 86
6
19
2
0 65
5
29
4
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
0
0
0
328
8
433
0 71
1
67
1
0 11
5
6
41
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 2 0
0 2 0
NO
O
N
PM AM NO
O
N
AM
PM
NO
O
N
AM
PMNO
O
N
PM AM
N:\3098\Report\Letter Report.3098.doc
Attachment B
Intersection Analysis Worksheets
Sterling Natural Resource Center Ex AM
1: Tippecanoe Ave & 5th St 05/30/2019
Sterling Natural Resource Center 09/22/2016 Ex AM Synchro 10 Report
Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 54 113 45 26 279 24 36 263 8 22 481 43
Future Volume (veh/h) 54 113 45 26 279 24 36 263 8 22 481 43
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 0.99 0.97 1.00 0.96 0.99 0.96
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 64 133 53 31 328 28 42 309 9 26 566 51
Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222
Cap, veh/h 285 555 456 424 555 456 486 1883 55 652 1756 158
Arrive On Green 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53
Sat Flow, veh/h 1021 1870 1539 1189 1870 1539 803 3522 102 1056 3286 295
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 64 133 53 31 328 28 42 155 163 26 305 312
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1021 1870 1539 1189 1870 1539 803 1777 1847 1056 1777 1804
Q Serve(g_s), s 3.0 2.9 1.3 1.1 8.0 0.7 1.7 2.4 2.4 0.7 5.2 5.2
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 11.0 2.9 1.3 4.0 8.0 0.7 6.8 2.4 2.4 3.1 5.2 5.2
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.06 1.00 0.16
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 285 555 456 424 555 456 486 950 988 652 950 964
V/C Ratio(X) 0.22 0.24 0.12 0.07 0.59 0.06 0.09 0.16 0.16 0.04 0.32 0.32
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 509 965 794 684 965 794 486 950 988 652 950 964
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 20.7 14.2 13.7 15.7 16.0 13.4 8.9 6.3 6.3 7.1 7.0 7.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 1.0 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.9 0.9
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.7 1.1 0.4 0.3 3.1 0.2 0.3 0.8 0.8 0.1 1.7 1.8
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 21.1 14.4 13.8 15.8 17.0 13.5 9.3 6.7 6.7 7.2 7.9 7.9
LnGrp LOS C BBBBBAAAAAA
Approach Vol, veh/h 250 387 360 643
Approach Delay, s/veh 16.0 16.6 7.0 7.8
Approach LOS BBAA
Timer - Assigned Phs 2468
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 33.0 20.3 33.0 20.3
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 28.5 27.5 28.5 27.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.8 13.0 7.2 10.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.0 1.0 3.9 2.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 11.0
HCM 6th LOS B
Sterling Natural Resource Center Ex AM
2: Del Rosa Dr & 5th St 05/30/2019
Sterling Natural Resource Center 09/22/2016 Ex AM Synchro 10 Report
Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 55 76 18 15 252 40 14 181 6 15 300 59
Future Volume (veh/h) 55 76 18 15 252 40 14 181 6 15 300 59
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.99 0.97 0.99 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 65 89 21 18 296 47 16 213 7 18 353 69
Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222
Cap, veh/h 275 368 93 112 689 106 161 1768 57 120 1561 294
Arrive On Green 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55
Sat Flow, veh/h 533 1556 394 75 2914 449 116 3221 104 51 2844 536
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 89 0 86 193 0 168 123 0 113 235 0 205
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 868 0 1615 1835 0 1603 1761 0 1681 1839 0 1592
Q Serve(g_s), s 1.7 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 3.7 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 2.8
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.4 0.0 1.8 3.7 0.0 3.7 1.3 0.0 1.4 2.7 0.0 2.8
Prop In Lane 0.73 0.24 0.09 0.28 0.13 0.06 0.08 0.34
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 354 0 382 528 0 379 1063 0 922 1102 0 873
V/C Ratio(X) 0.25 0.00 0.23 0.37 0.00 0.44 0.12 0.00 0.12 0.21 0.00 0.23
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 720 0 886 1087 0 880 1063 0 922 1102 0 873
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 14.4 0.0 12.9 13.6 0.0 13.6 4.6 0.0 4.6 4.9 0.0 4.9
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.4 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.8 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.6
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.7 0.0 0.6 1.3 0.0 1.2 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.8 0.0 0.7
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 14.8 0.0 13.2 14.0 0.0 14.5 4.8 0.0 4.8 5.3 0.0 5.5
LnGrp LOS BABBABAAAAAA
Approach Vol, veh/h 175 361 236 440
Approach Delay, s/veh 14.0 14.2 4.8 5.4
Approach LOS BBAA
Timer - Assigned Phs 2468
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 27.5 14.4 27.5 14.4
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.4 7.4 4.8 5.7
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.2 0.9 2.5 1.9
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 9.2
HCM 6th LOS A
Sterling Natural Resource Center Ex AM
3: Tippecanoe Ave & 3rd St 05/30/2019
Sterling Natural Resource Center 09/22/2016 Ex AM Synchro 10 Report
Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 31 192 39 314 566 32 43 241 158 36 434 33
Future Volume (veh/h) 31 192 39 314 566 32 43 241 158 36 434 33
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 35 218 44 357 643 36 49 274 180 41 493 38
Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222
Cap, veh/h 67 684 135 408 1113 482 85 993 617 75 914 70
Arrive On Green 0.04 0.23 0.23 0.12 0.31 0.31 0.05 0.28 0.28 0.04 0.27 0.27
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 2939 580 3456 3554 1540 1781 3554 1537 1781 3335 256
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 35 130 132 357 643 36 49 274 180 41 262 269
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1742 1728 1777 1540 1781 1777 1537 1781 1777 1815
Q Serve(g_s), s 1.1 3.3 3.5 5.6 8.3 0.9 1.5 3.3 4.4 1.2 6.9 7.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.1 3.3 3.5 5.6 8.3 0.9 1.5 3.3 4.4 1.2 6.9 7.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.14
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 67 413 405 408 1113 482 85 993 617 75 487 497
V/C Ratio(X) 0.52 0.31 0.33 0.87 0.58 0.07 0.57 0.28 0.29 0.54 0.54 0.54
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 204 1002 982 408 2016 874 227 2552 1291 162 1212 1237
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 26.0 17.5 17.5 23.8 15.8 13.3 25.6 15.5 11.3 25.8 17.0 17.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 6.2 0.4 0.5 18.5 0.5 0.1 6.0 0.1 0.3 6.0 0.9 0.9
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.5 1.3 1.3 3.2 3.1 0.3 0.7 1.2 1.3 0.6 2.6 2.7
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 32.1 17.9 18.0 42.4 16.3 13.3 31.6 15.6 11.6 31.8 17.9 17.9
LnGrp LOS C B B D B B C B B C B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 297 1036 503 572
Approach Delay, s/veh 19.6 25.2 15.7 18.9
Approach LOS B C B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.8 19.9 11.0 17.3 7.1 19.6 6.6 21.7
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 39.5 6.5 31.0 7.0 37.5 6.3 31.2
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.2 6.4 7.6 5.5 3.5 9.0 3.1 10.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.5 0.0 1.5 0.0 3.4 0.0 4.6
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 21.0
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
Sterling Natural Resource Center Ex AM
4: Tippecanoe Ave & San Bernardino Ave 05/30/2019
Sterling Natural Resource Center 09/22/2016 Ex AM Synchro 10 Report
Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 84 169 130 81 218 97 77 512 54 106 557 51
Future Volume (veh/h) 84 169 130 81 218 97 77 512 54 106 557 51
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 99 199 153 95 256 114 91 602 64 125 655 60
Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222
Cap, veh/h 329 358 257 333 446 191 117 965 102 229 982 90
Arrive On Green 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.07 0.30 0.30 0.07 0.30 0.30
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1935 1393 1781 2388 1025 1781 3231 343 3456 3282 300
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 99 182 170 95 188 182 91 331 335 125 354 361
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1552 1781 1777 1636 1781 1777 1797 1728 1777 1806
Q Serve(g_s), s 3.3 6.3 6.9 3.1 6.6 6.9 3.4 10.9 11.0 2.4 11.9 12.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.3 6.3 6.9 3.1 6.6 6.9 3.4 10.9 11.0 2.4 11.9 12.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.90 1.00 0.63 1.00 0.19 1.00 0.17
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 329 328 287 333 332 305 117 530 536 229 532 540
V/C Ratio(X) 0.30 0.55 0.59 0.29 0.57 0.60 0.78 0.62 0.63 0.54 0.67 0.67
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 704 703 614 704 703 647 175 822 831 324 814 828
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 24.0 25.3 25.5 23.9 25.3 25.4 31.4 20.6 20.7 30.9 20.9 21.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.5 1.5 2.0 0.5 1.5 1.9 12.0 1.2 1.2 2.0 1.4 1.4
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.4 2.7 2.6 1.3 2.8 2.7 1.8 4.4 4.5 1.0 4.8 4.9
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 24.5 26.7 27.5 24.3 26.8 27.3 43.4 21.8 21.9 32.9 22.4 22.4
LnGrp LOS CCCCCCDCCCCC
Approach Vol, veh/h 451 465 757 840
Approach Delay, s/veh 26.5 26.5 24.4 23.9
Approach LOS CCCC
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.0 24.9 17.1 9.0 24.9 17.2
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 6.4 31.6 27.0 6.7 31.3 27.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.4 13.0 8.9 5.4 14.0 8.9
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 4.0 2.3 0.0 4.2 2.4
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 25.0
HCM 6th LOS C
Sterling Natural Resource Center Ex AM
5: Tippecanoe Ave & Harriman Place 05/30/2019
Sterling Natural Resource Center 09/22/2016 Ex AM Synchro 10 Report
Page 5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 47 0 187 552 150 389 138 747 368 0 765 66
Future Volume (veh/h) 47 0 187 552 150 389 138 747 368 0 765 66
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.98
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 0 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 0 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 52 0 208 613 366 300 153 830 409 0 850 73
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Percent Heavy Veh, %202222222022
Cap, veh/h 76 0 0 773 505 415 229 2661 796 0 1494 617
Arrive On Green 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.27 0.27 0.07 0.52 0.52 0.00 0.40 0.40
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 52 3563 1870 1536 3456 5106 1527 0 3741 1546
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 52 48.8 613 366 300 153 830 409 0 850 73
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 D 1781 1870 1536 1728 1702 1527 0 1870 1546
Q Serve(g_s), s 2.3 13.2 14.4 14.4 3.5 7.5 14.2 0.0 14.3 2.4
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.3 13.2 14.4 14.4 3.5 7.5 14.2 0.0 14.3 2.4
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 76 773 505 415 229 2661 796 0 1494 617
V/C Ratio(X) 0.69 0.79 0.72 0.72 0.67 0.31 0.51 0.00 0.57 0.12
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 114 2138 899 738 285 2661 796 0 1494 617
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 38.3 30.1 26.9 26.9 37.0 11.1 12.7 0.0 18.9 15.4
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 10.5 1.9 2.0 2.4 4.2 0.3 2.4 0.0 1.6 0.4
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.2 5.7 6.5 5.3 1.6 2.7 4.9 0.0 6.2 0.9
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 48.8 31.9 28.9 29.3 41.2 11.4 15.1 0.0 20.5 15.8
LnGrp LOS D CCCDBBACB
Approach Vol, veh/h 1279 1392 923
Approach Delay, s/veh 30.4 15.8 20.1
Approach LOS C B C
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 5678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 46.8 22.1 9.9 36.9 8.0 26.4
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 42.3 48.7 6.7 31.1 5.2 39.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 16.2 15.2 5.5 16.3 4.3 16.4
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 8.4 2.4 0.1 5.5 0.0 3.4
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 22.5
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.
Sterling Natural Resource Center Ex AM
6: Anderson St & I-10 EB Ramps 05/30/2019
Sterling Natural Resource Center 09/22/2016 Ex AM Synchro 10 Report
Page 6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 590 2 595 00006552941928660
Future Volume (veh/h) 590 2 595 00006552941928660
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 0 1870 1870 1870 1870 0
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 629 0 633 0 697 313 204 921 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 022220
Cap, veh/h 1009 0 868 0 1292 561 317 1928 0
Arrive On Green 0.28 0.00 0.28 0.00 0.36 0.36 0.09 0.54 0.00
Sat Flow, veh/h 3563 0 3065 0 3647 1544 3456 3647 0
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 629 0 633 0 697 313 204 921 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1533 0 1777 1544 1728 1777 0
Q Serve(g_s), s 7.9 0.0 9.6 0.0 8.0 8.4 2.9 8.3 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.9 0.0 9.6 0.0 8.0 8.4 2.9 8.3 0.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1009 0 868 0 1292 561 317 1928 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0.62 0.00 0.73 0.00 0.54 0.56 0.64 0.48 0.00
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1242 0 1069 0 1292 561 355 1928 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 16.1 0.0 16.7 0.0 13.0 13.1 22.6 7.3 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.7 0.0 2.0 0.0 1.6 4.0 3.4 0.9 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.9 0.0 3.2 0.0 3.0 3.1 1.2 2.5 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 16.8 0.0 18.7 0.0 14.6 17.1 26.0 8.1 0.0
LnGrp LOS B A B A B B C A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 1262 1010 1125
Approach Delay, s/veh 17.7 15.4 11.4
Approach LOS B B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.2 23.3 19.1 32.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.3 18.2 18.0 28.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.9 10.4 11.6 10.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.6 3.0 6.3
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 14.9
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.
Sterling Natural Resource Center Ex PM
1: Tippecanoe Ave & 5th St 05/30/2019
Sterling Natural Resource Center 09/22/2016 Ex PM Synchro 10 Report
Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 71 433 56 19 112 29 70 530 25 35 333 38
Future Volume (veh/h) 71 433 56 19 112 29 70 530 25 35 333 38
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.99 0.97 1.00 0.97 0.99 0.96 1.00 0.96
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 76 466 60 20 120 31 75 570 27 38 358 41
Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222
Cap, veh/h 481 623 513 226 623 513 564 1747 83 463 1623 184
Arrive On Green 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51
Sat Flow, veh/h 1228 1870 1542 874 1870 1542 980 3447 163 818 3202 364
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 76 466 60 20 120 31 75 293 304 38 197 202
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1228 1870 1542 874 1870 1542 980 1777 1834 818 1777 1788
Q Serve(g_s), s 2.6 12.4 1.5 1.2 2.6 0.8 2.6 5.5 5.5 1.6 3.5 3.5
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.2 12.4 1.5 13.6 2.6 0.8 6.1 5.5 5.5 7.1 3.5 3.5
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.09 1.00 0.20
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 481 623 513 226 623 513 564 901 929 463 901 906
V/C Ratio(X) 0.16 0.75 0.12 0.09 0.19 0.06 0.13 0.33 0.33 0.08 0.22 0.22
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 672 915 754 362 915 754 564 901 929 463 901 906
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 15.2 16.7 13.0 22.7 13.4 12.8 9.4 8.2 8.2 10.3 7.7 7.7
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 1.9 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.5 1.0 0.9 0.3 0.6 0.6
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.7 5.0 0.5 0.2 1.0 0.2 0.5 1.9 2.0 0.3 1.2 1.2
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 15.4 18.6 13.1 22.9 13.5 12.8 9.9 9.2 9.1 10.6 8.3 8.3
LnGrp LOS B B B C BBAAABAA
Approach Vol, veh/h 602 171 672 437
Approach Delay, s/veh 17.6 14.5 9.2 8.5
Approach LOS BBAA
Timer - Assigned Phs 2468
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 33.0 23.2 33.0 23.2
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 28.5 27.5 28.5 27.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.1 14.4 9.1 15.6
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 4.0 2.9 2.5 0.6
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 12.2
HCM 6th LOS B
Sterling Natural Resource Center Ex PM
2: Del Rosa Dr & 5th St 05/30/2019
Sterling Natural Resource Center 09/22/2016 Ex PM Synchro 10 Report
Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 67 389 28 7 106 30 17 339 24 33 174 22
Future Volume (veh/h) 67 389 28 7 106 30 17 339 24 33 174 22
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.99 0.97 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 71 409 29 7 112 32 18 357 25 35 183 23
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222
Cap, veh/h 189 773 54 102 711 190 121 1683 115 278 1344 169
Arrive On Green 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52
Sat Flow, veh/h 313 2855 199 46 2626 702 61 3211 219 331 2564 323
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 267 0 242 80 0 71 211 0 189 124 0 117
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1709 0 1659 1825 0 1549 1834 0 1657 1581 0 1635
Q Serve(g_s), s 2.3 0.0 5.5 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.0 0.0 1.6
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.7 0.0 5.5 1.4 0.0 1.5 2.7 0.0 2.7 1.5 0.0 1.6
Prop In Lane 0.27 0.12 0.09 0.45 0.09 0.13 0.28 0.20
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 566 0 449 583 0 419 1050 0 868 934 0 857
V/C Ratio(X) 0.47 0.00 0.54 0.14 0.00 0.17 0.20 0.00 0.22 0.13 0.00 0.14
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 983 0 869 1020 0 812 1050 0 868 934 0 857
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 13.7 0.0 13.7 12.2 0.0 12.2 5.6 0.0 5.6 5.3 0.0 5.3
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.6 0.0 1.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.6 0.3 0.0 0.3
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.0 0.0 1.8 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.8 0.0 0.8 0.5 0.0 0.4
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 14.3 0.0 14.7 12.3 0.0 12.4 6.0 0.0 6.2 5.6 0.0 5.7
LnGrp LOS BABBABAAAAAA
Approach Vol, veh/h 509 151 400 241
Approach Delay, s/veh 14.5 12.4 6.1 5.6
Approach LOS BBAA
Timer - Assigned Phs 2468
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 27.5 16.4 27.5 16.4
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.7 7.7 3.6 3.5
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.2 2.8 1.3 0.7
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 10.0
HCM 6th LOS B
Sterling Natural Resource Center Ex PM
3: Tippecanoe Ave & 3rd St 05/30/2019
Sterling Natural Resource Center 09/22/2016 Ex PM Synchro 10 Report
Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 46 674 61 199 235 46 54 522 545 40 333 31
Future Volume (veh/h) 46 674 61 199 235 46 54 522 545 40 333 31
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 52 766 69 226 267 52 61 593 619 45 378 35
Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222
Cap, veh/h 71 951 86 258 1152 499 79 1438 744 66 1304 120
Arrive On Green 0.04 0.29 0.29 0.07 0.32 0.32 0.04 0.40 0.40 0.04 0.40 0.40
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3287 296 3456 3554 1541 1781 3554 1546 1781 3282 302
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 52 414 421 226 267 52 61 593 619 45 204 209
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1806 1728 1777 1541 1781 1777 1546 1781 1777 1807
Q Serve(g_s), s 2.7 20.0 20.0 6.0 5.1 2.2 3.1 11.0 32.2 2.3 7.2 7.3
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.7 20.0 20.0 6.0 5.1 2.2 3.1 11.0 32.2 2.3 7.2 7.3
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.16 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.17
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 71 514 523 258 1152 499 79 1438 744 66 706 718
V/C Ratio(X) 0.73 0.80 0.81 0.88 0.23 0.10 0.77 0.41 0.83 0.68 0.29 0.29
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 100 595 605 258 1255 544 173 1501 771 96 706 718
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 44.0 30.5 30.5 42.4 22.9 21.9 43.8 19.7 20.9 44.0 19.0 19.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 15.3 7.0 6.9 27.1 0.1 0.1 14.8 0.2 7.6 11.7 0.2 0.2
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.5 9.3 9.4 3.5 2.1 0.8 1.7 4.5 12.4 1.2 2.9 3.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 59.2 37.5 37.4 69.5 23.0 22.0 58.6 19.9 28.5 55.7 19.2 19.2
LnGrp LOS E D D E C C E B C E B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 887 545 1273 458
Approach Delay, s/veh 38.7 42.2 25.9 22.8
Approach LOS DDCC
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.9 42.0 11.4 31.3 8.6 41.3 8.2 34.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 39.1 6.9 31.0 9.0 35.1 5.2 32.7
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.3 34.2 8.0 22.0 5.1 9.3 4.7 7.1
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.8 0.0 3.5 0.0 2.5 0.0 1.9
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 31.9
HCM 6th LOS C
Sterling Natural Resource Center Ex PM
4: Tippecanoe Ave & San Bernardino Ave 05/30/2019
Sterling Natural Resource Center 09/22/2016 Ex PM Synchro 10 Report
Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 148 538 123 52 258 142 101 688 98 204 643 61
Future Volume (veh/h) 148 538 123 52 258 142 101 688 98 204 643 61
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 159 578 132 56 277 153 109 740 105 219 691 66
Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222
Cap, veh/h 448 717 163 330 408 217 126 881 125 290 968 92
Arrive On Green 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.07 0.28 0.28 0.08 0.30 0.30
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 2855 650 1781 2205 1174 1781 3111 441 3456 3268 312
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 159 359 351 56 221 209 109 423 422 219 375 382
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1728 1781 1777 1602 1781 1777 1775 1728 1777 1803
Q Serve(g_s), s 6.7 17.4 17.5 2.4 10.6 11.2 5.5 20.5 20.5 5.7 17.3 17.3
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.7 17.4 17.5 2.4 10.6 11.2 5.5 20.5 20.5 5.7 17.3 17.3
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.38 1.00 0.73 1.00 0.25 1.00 0.17
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 448 446 434 330 329 296 126 503 503 290 526 534
V/C Ratio(X) 0.36 0.80 0.81 0.17 0.67 0.70 0.86 0.84 0.84 0.76 0.71 0.71
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 525 524 509 525 524 472 126 580 579 305 611 620
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 28.2 32.2 32.2 31.4 34.8 35.0 42.1 30.9 30.9 41.1 28.8 28.8
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.5 7.7 8.2 0.2 2.4 3.1 41.8 9.5 9.6 9.8 3.3 3.3
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.9 8.2 8.1 1.1 4.7 4.5 3.9 9.8 9.8 2.8 7.6 7.8
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 28.7 39.9 40.4 31.7 37.1 38.0 84.0 40.4 40.4 50.9 32.0 32.0
LnGrp LOS CDDCDDFDDDCC
Approach Vol, veh/h 869 486 954 976
Approach Delay, s/veh 38.1 36.9 45.4 36.3
Approach LOS DDDD
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.2 30.5 27.5 11.0 31.6 21.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 8.1 29.9 27.0 6.5 31.5 27.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.7 22.5 19.5 7.5 19.3 13.2
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.1 3.0 0.0 3.8 2.4
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 39.5
HCM 6th LOS D
Sterling Natural Resource Center Ex PM
5: Tippecanoe Ave & Harriman Place 05/30/2019
Sterling Natural Resource Center 09/22/2016 Ex PM Synchro 10 Report
Page 5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 160 0 696 214 228 289 319 648 630 0 1167 171
Future Volume (veh/h) 160 0 696 214 228 289 319 648 630 0 1167 171
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.98
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 0 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 0 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 176 0 765 235 301 284 351 712 692 0 1282 188
Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91
Percent Heavy Veh, %202222222022
Cap, veh/h 200 0 0 308 422 345 400 2851 854 0 1526 631
Arrive On Green 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.23 0.23 0.12 0.56 0.56 0.00 0.41 0.41
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 176 3563 1870 1530 3456 5106 1529 0 3741 1546
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 176 89.7 235 301 284 351 712 692 0 1282 188
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 F 1781 1870 1530 1728 1702 1529 0 1870 1546
Q Serve(g_s), s 12.7 8.4 19.4 23.0 13.0 9.3 47.6 0.0 40.2 10.7
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 12.7 8.4 19.4 23.0 13.0 9.3 47.6 0.0 40.2 10.7
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 200 308 422 345 400 2851 854 0 1526 631
V/C Ratio(X) 0.88 0.76 0.71 0.82 0.88 0.25 0.81 0.00 0.84 0.30
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 201 1590 559 458 411 2851 854 0 1526 631
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 57.0 58.3 46.6 48.0 56.7 14.8 23.2 0.0 34.8 26.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 32.8 3.9 2.9 8.8 18.5 0.2 8.2 0.0 5.7 1.2
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 7.5 4.0 9.4 9.6 6.7 3.7 18.5 0.0 19.3 4.2
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 89.7 62.2 49.4 56.8 75.2 15.0 31.5 0.0 40.5 27.2
LnGrp LOS F E D E E B C A D C
Approach Vol, veh/h 820 1755 1470
Approach Delay, s/veh 55.7 33.5 38.8
Approach LOS E C D
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 5678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 77.3 15.8 19.6 57.7 19.2 33.9
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 72.8 58.2 15.5 52.8 14.7 39.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 49.6 10.4 15.0 42.2 14.7 25.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 8.8 0.9 0.1 6.8 0.0 2.5
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 42.0
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.
Sterling Natural Resource Center Ex PM
6: Anderson St & I-10 EB Ramps 05/30/2019
Sterling Natural Resource Center 09/22/2016 Ex PM Synchro 10 Report
Page 6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 433 8 328 00001156 415 671 711 0
Future Volume (veh/h) 433 8 328 00001156 415 671 711 0
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 0 1870 1870 1870 1870 0
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 452 0 338 0 1192 428 692 733 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 022220
Cap, veh/h 616 0 526 0 1487 647 789 2512 0
Arrive On Green 0.17 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.42 0.42 0.23 0.71 0.00
Sat Flow, veh/h 3563 0 3039 0 3647 1547 3456 3647 0
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 452 0 338 0 1192 428 692 733 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1519 0 1777 1547 1728 1777 0
Q Serve(g_s), s 9.0 0.0 7.8 0.0 22.0 16.7 14.5 5.7 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.0 0.0 7.8 0.0 22.0 16.7 14.5 5.7 0.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 616 0 526 0 1487 647 789 2512 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0.73 0.00 0.64 0.00 0.80 0.66 0.88 0.29 0.00
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 855 0 730 0 1487 647 853 2512 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 29.4 0.0 28.8 0.0 19.1 17.5 27.9 4.1 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.1 0.0 1.3 0.0 4.6 5.2 9.7 0.3 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.9 0.0 2.8 0.0 9.2 6.4 6.8 1.6 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 31.4 0.0 30.2 0.0 23.7 22.8 37.6 4.4 0.0
LnGrp LOS C A C A C C D A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 790 1620 1425
Approach Delay, s/veh 30.9 23.5 20.5
Approach LOS C C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 21.6 35.9 17.5 57.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 18.5 30.0 18.0 53.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 16.5 24.0 11.0 7.7
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.6 4.4 2.0 6.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 23.9
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.
Sterling Natural Resource Center Ex + P AM
1: Tippecanoe Ave & 5th St 05/30/2019
Sterling Natural Resource Center 09/22/2016 Ex + P AM Synchro 10 Report
Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 54 113 45 36 279 24 36 263 18 22 481 43
Future Volume (veh/h) 54 113 45 36 279 24 36 263 18 22 481 43
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 0.99 0.97 1.00 0.96 0.99 0.96
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 64 133 53 42 328 28 42 309 21 26 566 51
Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222
Cap, veh/h 285 555 456 424 555 456 486 1801 122 644 1756 158
Arrive On Green 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53
Sat Flow, veh/h 1021 1870 1539 1189 1870 1539 803 3369 228 1044 3286 295
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 64 133 53 42 328 28 42 162 168 26 305 312
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1021 1870 1539 1189 1870 1539 803 1777 1819 1044 1777 1804
Q Serve(g_s), s 3.0 2.9 1.3 1.5 8.0 0.7 1.7 2.5 2.5 0.7 5.2 5.2
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 11.0 2.9 1.3 4.3 8.0 0.7 6.8 2.5 2.5 3.2 5.2 5.2
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.13 1.00 0.16
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 285 555 456 424 555 456 486 950 973 644 950 964
V/C Ratio(X) 0.22 0.24 0.12 0.10 0.59 0.06 0.09 0.17 0.17 0.04 0.32 0.32
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 509 965 794 684 965 794 486 950 973 644 950 964
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 20.7 14.2 13.7 15.8 16.0 13.4 8.9 6.4 6.4 7.2 7.0 7.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 1.0 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.9 0.9
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.7 1.1 0.4 0.4 3.1 0.2 0.3 0.8 0.8 0.1 1.7 1.8
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 21.1 14.4 13.8 15.9 17.0 13.5 9.3 6.7 6.7 7.3 7.9 7.9
LnGrp LOS C BBBBBAAAAAA
Approach Vol, veh/h 250 398 372 643
Approach Delay, s/veh 16.0 16.6 7.0 7.8
Approach LOS BBAA
Timer - Assigned Phs 2468
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 33.0 20.3 33.0 20.3
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 28.5 27.5 28.5 27.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.8 13.0 7.2 10.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.1 1.0 3.9 2.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 11.0
HCM 6th LOS B
Sterling Natural Resource Center Ex + P AM
2: Del Rosa Dr & 5th St 05/30/2019
Sterling Natural Resource Center 09/22/2016 Ex + P AM Synchro 10 Report
Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 65 76 18 15 252 40 14 181 6 15 300 69
Future Volume (veh/h) 65 76 18 15 252 40 14 181 6 15 300 69
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.99 0.97 0.99 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 76 89 21 18 296 47 16 213 7 18 353 81
Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222
Cap, veh/h 299 368 93 111 727 112 158 1737 56 117 1489 329
Arrive On Green 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54
Sat Flow, veh/h 589 1477 372 74 2917 448 116 3219 104 48 2760 609
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 94 0 92 193 0 168 123 0 113 242 0 210
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 817 0 1620 1836 0 1604 1759 0 1681 1841 0 1577
Q Serve(g_s), s 2.4 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 3.7 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 3.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.1 0.0 1.9 3.7 0.0 3.7 1.4 0.0 1.4 2.9 0.0 3.0
Prop In Lane 0.80 0.23 0.09 0.28 0.13 0.06 0.07 0.39
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 356 0 404 550 0 400 1044 0 907 1084 0 851
V/C Ratio(X) 0.27 0.00 0.23 0.35 0.00 0.42 0.12 0.00 0.12 0.22 0.00 0.25
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 684 0 874 1070 0 865 1044 0 907 1084 0 851
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 14.9 0.0 12.7 13.4 0.0 13.4 4.8 0.0 4.8 5.2 0.0 5.2
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.4 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.7 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.5 0.0 0.7
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.7 0.0 0.6 1.3 0.0 1.2 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.9 0.0 0.8
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 15.3 0.0 13.0 13.8 0.0 14.1 5.1 0.0 5.1 5.7 0.0 5.9
LnGrp LOS BABBABAAAAAA
Approach Vol, veh/h 186 361 236 452
Approach Delay, s/veh 14.2 13.9 5.1 5.8
Approach LOS BBAA
Timer - Assigned Phs 2468
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 27.5 15.1 27.5 15.1
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.4 8.1 5.0 5.7
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.2 0.9 2.6 1.9
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 9.3
HCM 6th LOS A
Sterling Natural Resource Center Ex + P AM
3: Tippecanoe Ave & 3rd St 05/30/2019
Sterling Natural Resource Center 09/22/2016 Ex + P AM Synchro 10 Report
Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 31 192 39 314 566 32 43 251 158 36 444 33
Future Volume (veh/h) 31 192 39 314 566 32 43 251 158 36 444 33
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 35 218 44 357 643 36 49 285 180 41 505 38
Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222
Cap, veh/h 67 683 135 406 1110 481 85 1004 620 75 925 69
Arrive On Green 0.04 0.23 0.23 0.12 0.31 0.31 0.05 0.28 0.28 0.04 0.28 0.28
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 2939 580 3456 3554 1540 1781 3554 1537 1781 3342 251
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 35 130 132 357 643 36 49 285 180 41 268 275
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1742 1728 1777 1540 1781 1777 1537 1781 1777 1816
Q Serve(g_s), s 1.1 3.3 3.5 5.6 8.4 0.9 1.5 3.5 4.4 1.2 7.1 7.1
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.1 3.3 3.5 5.6 8.4 0.9 1.5 3.5 4.4 1.2 7.1 7.1
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.14
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 67 413 405 406 1110 481 85 1004 620 75 492 503
V/C Ratio(X) 0.52 0.31 0.33 0.88 0.58 0.07 0.58 0.28 0.29 0.54 0.54 0.55
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 203 995 976 406 2004 868 225 2537 1284 161 1204 1231
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 26.1 17.6 17.6 24.0 16.0 13.4 25.8 15.5 11.3 26.0 17.0 17.1
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 6.2 0.4 0.5 19.3 0.5 0.1 6.0 0.2 0.3 6.0 0.9 0.9
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.5 1.3 1.3 3.2 3.1 0.3 0.7 1.3 1.3 0.6 2.7 2.8
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 32.3 18.0 18.1 43.4 16.5 13.5 31.8 15.6 11.5 32.0 18.0 18.0
LnGrp LOS C B B D B B C B B C B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 297 1036 514 584
Approach Delay, s/veh 19.7 25.6 15.7 19.0
Approach LOS B C B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.8 20.1 11.0 17.4 7.1 19.8 6.6 21.8
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 39.5 6.5 31.0 7.0 37.5 6.3 31.2
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.2 6.4 7.6 5.5 3.5 9.1 3.1 10.4
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.6 0.0 1.5 0.0 3.5 0.0 4.6
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 21.2
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
Sterling Natural Resource Center Ex + P AM
4: Tippecanoe Ave & San Bernardino Ave 05/30/2019
Sterling Natural Resource Center 09/22/2016 Ex + P AM Synchro 10 Report
Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 84 169 130 81 218 97 77 522 54 106 567 51
Future Volume (veh/h) 84 169 130 81 218 97 77 522 54 106 567 51
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 99 199 153 95 256 114 91 614 64 125 667 60
Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222
Cap, veh/h 328 357 257 332 445 191 117 975 101 228 992 89
Arrive On Green 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.07 0.30 0.30 0.07 0.30 0.30
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1935 1393 1781 2388 1025 1781 3238 337 3456 3288 295
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 99 182 170 95 188 182 91 336 342 125 360 367
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1552 1781 1777 1636 1781 1777 1798 1728 1777 1807
Q Serve(g_s), s 3.3 6.4 6.9 3.1 6.6 7.0 3.5 11.2 11.3 2.4 12.2 12.2
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.3 6.4 6.9 3.1 6.6 7.0 3.5 11.2 11.3 2.4 12.2 12.2
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.90 1.00 0.63 1.00 0.19 1.00 0.16
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 328 328 286 332 331 305 117 535 542 228 536 545
V/C Ratio(X) 0.30 0.55 0.60 0.29 0.57 0.60 0.78 0.63 0.63 0.55 0.67 0.67
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 700 698 610 700 698 643 174 817 827 322 810 823
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 24.2 25.4 25.7 24.0 25.4 25.6 31.6 20.7 20.7 31.1 21.0 21.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.5 1.5 2.0 0.5 1.5 1.9 12.2 1.2 1.2 2.0 1.5 1.5
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.4 2.7 2.6 1.3 2.8 2.7 1.8 4.5 4.6 1.0 4.9 5.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 24.7 26.9 27.6 24.5 27.0 27.5 43.8 21.9 21.9 33.1 22.5 22.5
LnGrp LOS CCCCCCDCCCCC
Approach Vol, veh/h 451 465 769 852
Approach Delay, s/veh 26.7 26.7 24.5 24.0
Approach LOS CCCC
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.0 25.2 17.2 9.0 25.2 17.3
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 6.4 31.6 27.0 6.7 31.3 27.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.4 13.3 8.9 5.5 14.2 9.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 4.1 2.3 0.0 4.3 2.4
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 25.1
HCM 6th LOS C
Sterling Natural Resource Center Ex + P AM
5: Tippecanoe Ave & Harriman Place 05/30/2019
Sterling Natural Resource Center 09/22/2016 Ex + P AM Synchro 10 Report
Page 5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 47 0 187 552 150 394 138 752 368 0 775 66
Future Volume (veh/h) 47 0 187 552 150 394 138 752 368 0 775 66
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.98
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 0 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 0 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 52 0 208 613 370 302 153 836 409 0 861 73
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Percent Heavy Veh, %202222222022
Cap, veh/h 76 0 0 772 508 418 229 2654 794 0 1490 615
Arrive On Green 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.27 0.27 0.07 0.52 0.52 0.00 0.40 0.40
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 52 3563 1870 1536 3456 5106 1527 0 3741 1546
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 52 48.9 613 370 302 153 836 409 0 861 73
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 D 1781 1870 1536 1728 1702 1527 0 1870 1546
Q Serve(g_s), s 2.3 13.2 14.6 14.5 3.5 7.6 14.3 0.0 14.6 2.4
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.3 13.2 14.6 14.5 3.5 7.6 14.3 0.0 14.6 2.4
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 76 772 508 418 229 2654 794 0 1490 615
V/C Ratio(X) 0.69 0.79 0.73 0.72 0.67 0.31 0.52 0.00 0.58 0.12
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 114 2132 896 736 285 2654 794 0 1490 615
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 38.4 30.1 26.9 26.9 37.1 11.2 12.8 0.0 19.1 15.5
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 10.5 1.9 2.0 2.4 4.2 0.3 2.4 0.0 1.6 0.4
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.2 5.7 6.5 5.4 1.6 2.7 5.0 0.0 6.3 0.9
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 48.9 32.0 28.9 29.2 41.3 11.5 15.2 0.0 20.8 15.9
LnGrp LOS D CCCDBBACB
Approach Vol, veh/h 1285 1398 934
Approach Delay, s/veh 30.5 15.9 20.4
Approach LOS C B C
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 5678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 46.8 22.1 9.9 36.9 8.0 26.6
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 42.3 48.7 6.7 31.1 5.2 39.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 16.3 15.2 5.5 16.6 4.3 16.6
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 8.4 2.4 0.1 5.5 0.0 3.4
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 22.6
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.
Sterling Natural Resource Center Ex + P AM
6: Anderson St & I-10 EB Ramps 05/30/2019
Sterling Natural Resource Center 09/22/2016 Ex + P AM Synchro 10 Report
Page 6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 595 2 595 00006552941978660
Future Volume (veh/h) 595 2 595 00006552941978660
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 0 1870 1870 1870 1870 0
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 634 0 633 0 697 313 210 921 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 022220
Cap, veh/h 1009 0 868 0 1287 559 321 1927 0
Arrive On Green 0.28 0.00 0.28 0.00 0.36 0.36 0.09 0.54 0.00
Sat Flow, veh/h 3563 0 3065 0 3647 1544 3456 3647 0
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 634 0 633 0 697 313 210 921 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1533 0 1777 1544 1728 1777 0
Q Serve(g_s), s 8.0 0.0 9.6 0.0 8.0 8.4 3.0 8.3 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.0 0.0 9.6 0.0 8.0 8.4 3.0 8.3 0.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1009 0 868 0 1287 559 321 1927 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0.63 0.00 0.73 0.00 0.54 0.56 0.65 0.48 0.00
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1242 0 1069 0 1287 559 355 1927 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 16.1 0.0 16.7 0.0 13.1 13.2 22.6 7.3 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.7 0.0 2.0 0.0 1.6 4.0 3.7 0.9 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.9 0.0 3.2 0.0 3.0 3.1 1.3 2.5 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 16.8 0.0 18.7 0.0 14.7 17.2 26.3 8.1 0.0
LnGrp LOS B A B A B B C A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 1267 1010 1131
Approach Delay, s/veh 17.8 15.5 11.5
Approach LOS B B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.3 23.2 19.1 32.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.3 18.2 18.0 28.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.0 10.4 11.6 10.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.6 3.0 6.3
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 15.0
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.
Sterling Natural Resource Center Ex + P PM
1: Tippecanoe Ave & 5th St 05/30/2019
Sterling Natural Resource Center 09/22/2016 Ex + P PM Synchro 10 Report
Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 71 433 56 29 112 29 70 530 35 35 333 38
Future Volume (veh/h) 71 433 56 29 112 29 70 530 35 35 333 38
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.99 0.97 1.00 0.97 0.99 0.96 1.00 0.96
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 76 466 60 31 120 31 75 570 38 38 358 41
Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222
Cap, veh/h 481 623 513 226 623 513 564 1709 114 457 1623 184
Arrive On Green 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51
Sat Flow, veh/h 1228 1870 1542 874 1870 1542 980 3372 224 810 3202 364
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 76 466 60 31 120 31 75 300 308 38 197 202
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1228 1870 1542 874 1870 1542 980 1777 1820 810 1777 1788
Q Serve(g_s), s 2.6 12.4 1.5 1.8 2.6 0.8 2.6 5.6 5.7 1.6 3.5 3.5
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.2 12.4 1.5 14.3 2.6 0.8 6.1 5.6 5.7 7.3 3.5 3.5
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.12 1.00 0.20
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 481 623 513 226 623 513 564 901 922 457 901 906
V/C Ratio(X) 0.16 0.75 0.12 0.14 0.19 0.06 0.13 0.33 0.33 0.08 0.22 0.22
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 672 915 754 362 915 754 564 901 922 457 901 906
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 15.2 16.7 13.0 23.0 13.4 12.8 9.4 8.2 8.2 10.4 7.7 7.7
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 1.9 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.0 0.4 0.6 0.6
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.7 5.0 0.5 0.4 1.0 0.2 0.5 2.0 2.0 0.3 1.2 1.2
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 15.4 18.6 13.1 23.3 13.5 12.8 9.9 9.2 9.2 10.8 8.3 8.3
LnGrp LOS B B B C BBAAABAA
Approach Vol, veh/h 602 182 683 437
Approach Delay, s/veh 17.6 15.1 9.3 8.5
Approach LOS BBAA
Timer - Assigned Phs 2468
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 33.0 23.2 33.0 23.2
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 28.5 27.5 28.5 27.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.1 14.4 9.3 16.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 4.1 2.9 2.5 0.6
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 12.3
HCM 6th LOS B
Sterling Natural Resource Center Ex + P PM
2: Del Rosa Dr & 5th St 05/30/2019
Sterling Natural Resource Center 09/22/2016 Ex + P PM Synchro 10 Report
Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 77 389 28 7 106 30 17 339 24 33 174 32
Future Volume (veh/h) 77 389 28 7 106 30 17 339 24 33 174 32
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.99 0.97 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 81 409 29 7 112 32 18 357 25 35 183 34
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222
Cap, veh/h 205 766 54 101 722 193 120 1673 114 266 1273 235
Arrive On Green 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52
Sat Flow, veh/h 362 2787 195 46 2627 702 61 3210 219 312 2443 451
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 272 0 247 80 0 71 211 0 189 131 0 121
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1684 0 1660 1826 0 1549 1833 0 1657 1597 0 1609
Q Serve(g_s), s 2.8 0.0 5.6 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.0 0.0 1.7
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.9 0.0 5.6 1.4 0.0 1.5 2.7 0.0 2.7 1.6 0.0 1.7
Prop In Lane 0.30 0.12 0.09 0.45 0.09 0.13 0.27 0.28
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 569 0 456 591 0 426 1044 0 864 936 0 839
V/C Ratio(X) 0.48 0.00 0.54 0.14 0.00 0.17 0.20 0.00 0.22 0.14 0.00 0.14
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 968 0 865 1015 0 808 1044 0 864 936 0 839
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 13.6 0.0 13.6 12.1 0.0 12.2 5.7 0.0 5.7 5.4 0.0 5.5
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.6 0.0 1.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.6 0.3 0.0 0.4
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.0 0.0 1.9 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.8 0.0 0.8 0.5 0.0 0.5
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 14.3 0.0 14.6 12.2 0.0 12.3 6.1 0.0 6.3 5.8 0.0 5.8
LnGrp LOS BABBABAAAAAA
Approach Vol, veh/h 519 151 400 252
Approach Delay, s/veh 14.4 12.3 6.2 5.8
Approach LOS BBAA
Timer - Assigned Phs 2468
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 27.5 16.6 27.5 16.6
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.7 7.9 3.7 3.5
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.2 2.8 1.4 0.7
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 10.1
HCM 6th LOS B
Sterling Natural Resource Center Ex + P PM
3: Tippecanoe Ave & 3rd St 05/30/2019
Sterling Natural Resource Center 09/22/2016 Ex + P PM Synchro 10 Report
Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 46 674 61 199 235 46 54 532 545 40 343 31
Future Volume (veh/h) 46 674 61 199 235 46 54 532 545 40 343 31
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 52 766 69 226 267 52 61 605 619 45 390 35
Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222
Cap, veh/h 71 956 86 244 1142 495 79 1444 740 66 1315 117
Arrive On Green 0.04 0.29 0.29 0.07 0.32 0.32 0.04 0.41 0.41 0.04 0.40 0.40
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3287 296 3456 3554 1541 1781 3554 1546 1781 3292 294
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 52 414 421 226 267 52 61 605 619 45 209 216
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1806 1728 1777 1541 1781 1777 1546 1781 1777 1809
Q Serve(g_s), s 2.7 19.9 19.9 6.0 5.1 2.2 3.1 11.2 32.2 2.3 7.4 7.5
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.7 19.9 19.9 6.0 5.1 2.2 3.1 11.2 32.2 2.3 7.4 7.5
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.16 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.16
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 71 517 525 244 1142 495 79 1444 740 66 710 722
V/C Ratio(X) 0.73 0.80 0.80 0.93 0.23 0.11 0.77 0.42 0.84 0.68 0.30 0.30
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 100 605 615 244 1260 546 174 1507 767 97 710 722
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 43.8 30.2 30.2 42.6 23.0 22.0 43.6 19.6 21.0 43.8 18.9 18.9
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 14.9 6.6 6.5 38.5 0.1 0.1 14.8 0.2 7.8 11.6 0.2 0.2
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.5 9.2 9.3 3.8 2.1 0.8 1.7 4.5 12.4 1.2 3.0 3.1
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 58.7 36.8 36.8 81.1 23.1 22.1 58.4 19.8 28.9 55.5 19.1 19.1
LnGrp LOS E D D F C C E B C E B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 887 545 1285 470
Approach Delay, s/veh 38.1 47.0 26.0 22.6
Approach LOS DDCC
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.9 42.0 11.0 31.3 8.6 41.3 8.2 34.1
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 39.1 6.5 31.4 9.0 35.1 5.2 32.7
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.3 34.2 8.0 21.9 5.1 9.5 4.7 7.1
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.8 0.0 3.7 0.0 2.6 0.0 1.9
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 32.5
HCM 6th LOS C
Sterling Natural Resource Center Ex + P PM
4: Tippecanoe Ave & San Bernardino Ave 05/30/2019
Sterling Natural Resource Center 09/22/2016 Ex + P PM Synchro 10 Report
Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 148 538 123 52 258 142 101 698 98 204 653 61
Future Volume (veh/h) 148 538 123 52 258 142 101 698 98 204 653 61
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 159 578 132 56 277 153 109 751 105 219 702 66
Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222
Cap, veh/h 447 716 163 329 407 217 126 888 124 289 975 92
Arrive On Green 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.07 0.28 0.28 0.08 0.30 0.30
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 2855 650 1781 2205 1174 1781 3117 436 3456 3273 307
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 159 359 351 56 221 209 109 428 428 219 381 387
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1728 1781 1777 1602 1781 1777 1776 1728 1777 1804
Q Serve(g_s), s 6.8 17.4 17.6 2.4 10.7 11.2 5.6 20.9 20.9 5.7 17.6 17.6
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.8 17.4 17.6 2.4 10.7 11.2 5.6 20.9 20.9 5.7 17.6 17.6
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.38 1.00 0.73 1.00 0.25 1.00 0.17
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 447 446 433 329 328 296 126 506 506 289 529 537
V/C Ratio(X) 0.36 0.81 0.81 0.17 0.67 0.71 0.87 0.85 0.85 0.76 0.72 0.72
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 523 522 507 523 522 470 126 578 577 304 609 618
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 28.3 32.3 32.4 31.5 34.9 35.1 42.3 31.0 31.0 41.2 28.9 28.9
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.5 7.8 8.3 0.2 2.4 3.1 42.7 10.1 10.2 9.9 3.5 3.5
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.9 8.3 8.2 1.1 4.7 4.6 3.9 10.1 10.1 2.8 7.8 7.9
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 28.8 40.2 40.7 31.8 37.3 38.2 85.0 41.1 41.1 51.1 32.4 32.3
LnGrp LOS CDDCDDFDDDCC
Approach Vol, veh/h 869 486 965 987
Approach Delay, s/veh 38.3 37.1 46.1 36.5
Approach LOS DDDD
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.2 30.7 27.6 11.0 31.9 21.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 8.1 29.9 27.0 6.5 31.5 27.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.7 22.9 19.6 7.6 19.6 13.2
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.1 3.0 0.0 3.8 2.4
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 39.9
HCM 6th LOS D
Sterling Natural Resource Center Ex + P PM
5: Tippecanoe Ave & Harriman Place 05/30/2019
Sterling Natural Resource Center 09/22/2016 Ex + P PM Synchro 10 Report
Page 5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 160 0 696 214 228 294 319 653 630 0 1177 171
Future Volume (veh/h) 160 0 696 214 228 294 319 653 630 0 1177 171
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.98
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 0 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 0 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 176 0 765 235 305 287 351 718 692 0 1293 188
Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91
Percent Heavy Veh, %202222222022
Cap, veh/h 200 0 0 308 425 348 400 2845 852 0 1522 629
Arrive On Green 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.23 0.23 0.12 0.56 0.56 0.00 0.41 0.41
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 176 3563 1870 1530 3456 5106 1529 0 3741 1546
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 176 90.0 235 305 287 351 718 692 0 1293 188
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 F 1781 1870 1530 1728 1702 1529 0 1870 1546
Q Serve(g_s), s 12.7 8.4 19.7 23.3 13.1 9.5 47.9 0.0 40.9 10.7
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 12.7 8.4 19.7 23.3 13.1 9.5 47.9 0.0 40.9 10.7
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 200 308 425 348 400 2845 852 0 1522 629
V/C Ratio(X) 0.88 0.76 0.72 0.83 0.88 0.25 0.81 0.00 0.85 0.30
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 200 1587 558 457 410 2845 852 0 1522 629
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 57.1 58.4 46.6 48.0 56.9 14.9 23.4 0.0 35.1 26.2
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 32.9 4.0 3.0 9.2 18.6 0.2 8.3 0.0 6.1 1.2
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 7.6 4.0 9.5 9.8 6.7 3.7 18.6 0.0 19.7 4.2
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 90.0 62.3 49.7 57.2 75.5 15.1 31.7 0.0 41.2 27.4
LnGrp LOS F E D E E B C A D C
Approach Vol, veh/h 827 1761 1481
Approach Delay, s/veh 55.9 33.7 39.5
Approach LOS E C D
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 5678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 77.3 15.8 19.6 57.7 19.2 34.2
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 72.8 58.2 15.5 52.8 14.7 39.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 49.9 10.4 15.1 42.9 14.7 25.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 8.8 0.9 0.1 6.5 0.0 2.5
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 42.4
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.
Sterling Natural Resource Center Ex + P PM
6: Anderson St & I-10 EB Ramps 05/30/2019
Sterling Natural Resource Center 09/22/2016 Ex + P PM Synchro 10 Report
Page 6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 438 8 328 00001156 415 676 711 0
Future Volume (veh/h) 438 8 328 00001156 415 676 711 0
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 0 1870 1870 1870 1870 0
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 458 0 338 0 1192 428 697 733 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 022220
Cap, veh/h 621 0 530 0 1480 644 793 2508 0
Arrive On Green 0.17 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.42 0.42 0.23 0.71 0.00
Sat Flow, veh/h 3563 0 3039 0 3647 1546 3456 3647 0
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 458 0 338 0 1192 428 697 733 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1520 0 1777 1546 1728 1777 0
Q Serve(g_s), s 9.1 0.0 7.8 0.0 22.1 16.8 14.6 5.7 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.1 0.0 7.8 0.0 22.1 16.8 14.6 5.7 0.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 621 0 530 0 1480 644 793 2508 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0.74 0.00 0.64 0.00 0.81 0.66 0.88 0.29 0.00
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 854 0 728 0 1480 644 851 2508 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 29.4 0.0 28.8 0.0 19.2 17.7 27.9 4.1 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.2 0.0 1.3 0.0 4.8 5.3 10.0 0.3 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.0 0.0 2.8 0.0 9.3 6.5 6.9 1.6 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 31.5 0.0 30.1 0.0 24.0 23.0 37.9 4.4 0.0
LnGrp LOS C A C A C C D A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 796 1620 1430
Approach Delay, s/veh 30.9 23.8 20.7
Approach LOS C C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 21.7 35.8 17.6 57.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 18.5 30.0 18.0 53.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 16.6 24.1 11.1 7.7
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.6 4.3 2.0 6.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 24.1
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.
Sterling Natural Resource Center Ex + C AM
1: Tippecanoe Ave & 5th St 05/30/2019
Sterling Natural Resource Center 09/22/2016 Ex + C AM Synchro 10 Report
Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 57 120 48 28 296 25 38 279 8 23 510 46
Future Volume (veh/h) 57 120 48 28 296 25 38 279 8 23 510 46
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 0.99 0.97 1.00 0.96 0.99 0.96
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 67 141 56 33 348 29 45 328 9 27 600 54
Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222
Cap, veh/h 282 574 473 428 574 473 460 1858 51 629 1730 155
Arrive On Green 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53
Sat Flow, veh/h 1001 1870 1540 1178 1870 1540 776 3529 97 1037 3286 295
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 67 141 56 33 348 29 45 165 172 27 324 330
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1001 1870 1540 1178 1870 1540 776 1777 1849 1037 1777 1804
Q Serve(g_s), s 3.3 3.1 1.4 1.2 8.6 0.7 1.9 2.6 2.6 0.8 5.7 5.7
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 11.9 3.1 1.4 4.2 8.6 0.7 7.7 2.6 2.6 3.4 5.7 5.7
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.05 1.00 0.16
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 282 574 473 428 574 473 460 936 974 629 936 950
V/C Ratio(X) 0.24 0.25 0.12 0.08 0.61 0.06 0.10 0.18 0.18 0.04 0.35 0.35
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 483 950 782 665 950 782 460 936 974 629 936 950
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 21.0 14.1 13.5 15.6 16.0 13.2 9.6 6.7 6.7 7.6 7.4 7.4
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 1.0 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.1 1.0 1.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.7 1.2 0.5 0.3 3.4 0.2 0.3 0.9 0.9 0.2 1.9 2.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 21.4 14.3 13.6 15.7 17.0 13.3 10.1 7.1 7.1 7.7 8.4 8.4
LnGrp LOS C BBBBBBAAAAA
Approach Vol, veh/h 264 410 382 681
Approach Delay, s/veh 15.9 16.6 7.4 8.4
Approach LOS BBAA
Timer - Assigned Phs 2468
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 33.0 21.1 33.0 21.1
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 28.5 27.5 28.5 27.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.7 13.9 7.7 10.6
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.1 1.0 4.2 2.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 11.3
HCM 6th LOS B
Sterling Natural Resource Center Ex + C AM
2: Del Rosa Dr & 5th St 05/30/2019
Sterling Natural Resource Center 09/22/2016 Ex + C AM Synchro 10 Report
Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 58 81 19 16 267 42 15 192 6 16 318 63
Future Volume (veh/h) 58 81 19 16 267 42 15 192 6 16 318 63
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.99 0.97 0.99 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 68 95 22 19 314 49 18 226 7 19 374 74
Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222
Cap, veh/h 274 380 95 111 715 108 165 1739 53 119 1540 294
Arrive On Green 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54
Sat Flow, veh/h 520 1553 386 75 2921 442 126 3204 98 50 2837 541
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 93 0 92 204 0 178 131 0 120 250 0 217
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 843 0 1617 1834 0 1605 1746 0 1682 1838 0 1591
Q Serve(g_s), s 1.9 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 3.1
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.8 0.0 1.9 3.9 0.0 4.0 1.5 0.0 1.5 3.0 0.0 3.1
Prop In Lane 0.73 0.24 0.09 0.28 0.14 0.06 0.08 0.34
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 353 0 396 542 0 393 1044 0 913 1089 0 863
V/C Ratio(X) 0.26 0.00 0.23 0.38 0.00 0.45 0.13 0.00 0.13 0.23 0.00 0.25
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 698 0 878 1075 0 871 1044 0 913 1089 0 863
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 14.5 0.0 12.8 13.6 0.0 13.6 4.8 0.0 4.8 5.1 0.0 5.1
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.4 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.8 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.5 0.0 0.7
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.7 0.0 0.6 1.4 0.0 1.3 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.9 0.0 0.8
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 14.9 0.0 13.1 14.0 0.0 14.4 5.0 0.0 5.1 5.6 0.0 5.8
LnGrp LOS BABBABAAAAAA
Approach Vol, veh/h 185 382 251 467
Approach Delay, s/veh 14.0 14.2 5.0 5.7
Approach LOS BBAA
Timer - Assigned Phs 2468
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 27.5 14.9 27.5 14.9
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.5 7.8 5.1 6.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.3 0.9 2.7 2.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 9.3
HCM 6th LOS A
Sterling Natural Resource Center Ex + C AM
3: Tippecanoe Ave & 3rd St 05/30/2019
Sterling Natural Resource Center 09/22/2016 Ex + C AM Synchro 10 Report
Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 33 204 41 333 600 34 46 255 167 38 460 35
Future Volume (veh/h) 33 204 41 333 600 34 46 255 167 38 460 35
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 38 232 47 378 682 39 52 290 190 43 523 40
Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222
Cap, veh/h 70 721 143 391 1134 492 87 1012 617 77 931 71
Arrive On Green 0.04 0.25 0.25 0.11 0.32 0.32 0.05 0.28 0.28 0.04 0.28 0.28
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 2937 582 3456 3554 1541 1781 3554 1538 1781 3337 255
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 38 138 141 378 682 39 52 290 190 43 278 285
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1742 1728 1777 1541 1781 1777 1538 1781 1777 1815
Q Serve(g_s), s 1.2 3.7 3.8 6.3 9.3 1.0 1.6 3.7 4.9 1.4 7.7 7.7
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.2 3.7 3.8 6.3 9.3 1.0 1.6 3.7 4.9 1.4 7.7 7.7
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.14
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 70 436 428 391 1134 492 87 1012 617 77 496 506
V/C Ratio(X) 0.54 0.32 0.33 0.97 0.60 0.08 0.59 0.29 0.31 0.56 0.56 0.56
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 195 959 940 391 1930 837 217 2443 1236 155 1160 1185
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 27.1 17.7 17.8 25.4 16.5 13.7 26.8 16.0 11.9 26.9 17.7 17.7
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 6.3 0.4 0.4 36.7 0.5 0.1 6.3 0.2 0.3 6.2 1.0 1.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.6 1.4 1.5 4.4 3.5 0.3 0.8 1.4 1.5 0.7 3.0 3.1
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 33.3 18.1 18.2 62.1 17.0 13.7 33.1 16.2 12.2 33.1 18.7 18.7
LnGrp LOS C BBEBBCBBCBB
Approach Vol, veh/h 317 1099 532 606
Approach Delay, s/veh 20.0 32.4 16.4 19.7
Approach LOS C C B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.0 20.9 11.0 18.6 7.3 20.5 6.8 22.8
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 39.5 6.5 31.0 7.0 37.5 6.3 31.2
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.4 6.9 8.3 5.8 3.6 9.7 3.2 11.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.7 0.0 1.6 0.0 3.7 0.0 4.8
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 24.5
HCM 6th LOS C
Sterling Natural Resource Center Ex + C AM
4: Tippecanoe Ave & San Bernardino Ave 05/30/2019
Sterling Natural Resource Center 09/22/2016 Ex + C AM Synchro 10 Report
Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 89 179 138 86 231 103 82 543 57 112 590 54
Future Volume (veh/h) 89 179 138 86 231 103 82 543 57 112 590 54
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 105 211 162 101 272 121 96 639 67 132 694 64
Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222
Cap, veh/h 334 363 262 339 454 195 123 998 104 222 996 92
Arrive On Green 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.07 0.31 0.31 0.06 0.30 0.30
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1933 1396 1781 2387 1027 1781 3236 339 3456 3280 302
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 105 193 180 101 200 193 96 350 356 132 376 382
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1552 1781 1777 1637 1781 1777 1798 1728 1777 1805
Q Serve(g_s), s 3.7 7.1 7.7 3.5 7.4 7.8 3.8 12.3 12.3 2.7 13.5 13.5
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.7 7.1 7.7 3.5 7.4 7.8 3.8 12.3 12.3 2.7 13.5 13.5
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.90 1.00 0.63 1.00 0.19 1.00 0.17
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 334 334 291 339 338 311 123 548 554 222 540 548
V/C Ratio(X) 0.31 0.58 0.62 0.30 0.59 0.62 0.78 0.64 0.64 0.59 0.70 0.70
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 666 665 581 666 665 612 165 778 787 306 771 783
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 25.3 26.7 26.9 25.1 26.7 26.8 33.1 21.5 21.5 32.8 22.2 22.2
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.5 1.6 2.1 0.5 1.7 2.0 15.3 1.2 1.2 2.5 1.6 1.6
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.5 3.0 2.9 1.5 3.2 3.1 2.1 5.0 5.1 1.2 5.5 5.6
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 25.8 28.3 29.1 25.6 28.3 28.9 48.4 22.7 22.8 35.4 23.8 23.8
LnGrp LOS CCCCCCDCCDCC
Approach Vol, veh/h 478 494 802 890
Approach Delay, s/veh 28.0 28.0 25.8 25.5
Approach LOS CCCC
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.1 26.8 18.1 9.5 26.4 18.2
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 6.4 31.6 27.0 6.7 31.3 27.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.7 14.3 9.7 5.8 15.5 9.8
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 4.2 2.4 0.0 4.4 2.5
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 26.5
HCM 6th LOS C
Sterling Natural Resource Center Ex + C AM
5: Tippecanoe Ave & Harriman Place 05/30/2019
Sterling Natural Resource Center 09/22/2016 Ex + C AM Synchro 10 Report
Page 5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 50 0 198 585 159 412 146 792 390 0 811 70
Future Volume (veh/h) 50 0 198 585 159 412 146 792 390 0 811 70
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.97
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 0 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 0 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 56 0 220 650 388 318 162 880 433 0 901 78
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Percent Heavy Veh, %202222222022
Cap, veh/h 78 0 0 811 524 431 238 2617 782 0 1455 601
Arrive On Green 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.28 0.28 0.07 0.51 0.51 0.00 0.39 0.39
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 56 3563 1870 1537 3456 5106 1527 0 3741 1545
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 56 50.6 650 388 318 162 880 433 0 901 78
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 D 1781 1870 1537 1728 1702 1527 0 1870 1545
Q Serve(g_s), s 2.6 14.2 15.6 15.5 3.8 8.4 15.9 0.0 16.0 2.7
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.6 14.2 15.6 15.5 3.8 8.4 15.9 0.0 16.0 2.7
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 78 811 524 431 238 2617 782 0 1455 601
V/C Ratio(X) 0.72 0.80 0.74 0.74 0.68 0.34 0.55 0.00 0.62 0.13
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 112 2102 884 726 280 2617 782 0 1455 601
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 39.0 30.1 27.0 27.0 37.5 11.9 13.7 0.0 20.3 16.2
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 11.6 1.9 2.1 2.5 5.3 0.3 2.8 0.0 2.0 0.4
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.4 6.1 7.0 5.8 1.7 3.0 5.6 0.0 7.0 1.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 50.6 32.0 29.1 29.5 42.8 12.2 16.5 0.0 22.3 16.7
LnGrp LOS D CCCDBBACB
Approach Vol, veh/h 1356 1475 979
Approach Delay, s/veh 30.6 16.8 21.8
Approach LOS C B C
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 5678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 46.8 23.3 10.2 36.6 8.1 27.6
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 42.3 48.7 6.7 31.1 5.2 39.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 17.9 16.2 5.8 18.0 4.6 17.6
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 8.8 2.6 0.0 5.4 0.0 3.6
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 23.4
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.
Sterling Natural Resource Center Ex + C AM
6: Anderson St & I-10 EB Ramps 05/30/2019
Sterling Natural Resource Center 09/22/2016 Ex + C AM Synchro 10 Report
Page 6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 625 2 631 00006943122049180
Future Volume (veh/h) 625 2 631 00006943122049180
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 0 1870 1870 1870 1870 0
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 666 0 671 0 738 332 217 977 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 022220
Cap, veh/h 1040 0 895 0 1261 548 328 1905 0
Arrive On Green 0.29 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.35 0.35 0.09 0.54 0.00
Sat Flow, veh/h 3563 0 3066 0 3647 1543 3456 3647 0
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 666 0 671 0 738 332 217 977 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1533 0 1777 1543 1728 1777 0
Q Serve(g_s), s 8.5 0.0 10.4 0.0 8.8 9.2 3.2 9.2 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.5 0.0 10.4 0.0 8.8 9.2 3.2 9.2 0.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1040 0 895 0 1261 548 328 1905 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0.64 0.00 0.75 0.00 0.59 0.61 0.66 0.51 0.00
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1227 0 1057 0 1261 548 351 1905 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 16.1 0.0 16.8 0.0 13.7 13.8 22.8 7.8 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.9 0.0 2.5 0.0 2.0 4.9 4.2 1.0 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.2 0.0 3.5 0.0 3.4 3.5 1.4 2.9 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 17.0 0.0 19.3 0.0 15.7 18.8 27.0 8.7 0.0
LnGrp LOS B A B A B B C A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 1337 1070 1194
Approach Delay, s/veh 18.1 16.7 12.1
Approach LOS B B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.5 23.0 19.7 32.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.3 18.2 18.0 28.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.2 11.2 12.4 11.2
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.5 2.9 6.5
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 15.7
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.
Sterling Natural Resource Center Ex + C PM
1: Tippecanoe Ave & 5th St 05/30/2019
Sterling Natural Resource Center 09/22/2016 Ex + C PM Synchro 10 Report
Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 75 459 59 20 119 31 74 562 27 37 353 40
Future Volume (veh/h) 75 459 59 20 119 31 74 562 27 37 353 40
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.99 0.97 1.00 0.97 0.99 0.96 1.00 0.96
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 81 494 63 22 128 33 80 604 29 40 380 43
Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222
Cap, veh/h 486 644 531 218 644 531 539 1717 82 436 1598 179
Arrive On Green 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
Sat Flow, veh/h 1217 1870 1542 850 1870 1542 959 3445 165 791 3206 360
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 81 494 63 22 128 33 80 311 322 40 209 214
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1217 1870 1542 850 1870 1542 959 1777 1833 791 1777 1789
Q Serve(g_s), s 2.9 13.5 1.6 1.4 2.8 0.8 3.0 6.1 6.1 1.9 3.8 3.9
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.6 13.5 1.6 14.8 2.8 0.8 6.9 6.1 6.1 8.0 3.8 3.9
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.09 1.00 0.20
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 486 644 531 218 644 531 539 885 913 436 885 892
V/C Ratio(X) 0.17 0.77 0.12 0.10 0.20 0.06 0.15 0.35 0.35 0.09 0.24 0.24
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 653 899 742 335 899 742 539 885 913 436 885 892
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 15.2 16.7 12.8 23.3 13.2 12.6 10.1 8.7 8.7 11.2 8.2 8.2
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 2.6 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.6 1.1 1.1 0.4 0.6 0.6
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.7 5.5 0.5 0.3 1.1 0.3 0.6 2.2 2.2 0.3 1.4 1.4
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 15.3 19.3 12.9 23.5 13.3 12.6 10.7 9.8 9.8 11.6 8.8 8.8
LnGrp LOS B B B C BBBAABAA
Approach Vol, veh/h 638 183 713 463
Approach Delay, s/veh 18.2 14.4 9.9 9.0
Approach LOS BBAA
Timer - Assigned Phs 2468
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 33.0 24.2 33.0 24.2
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 28.5 27.5 28.5 27.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.9 15.5 10.0 16.8
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 4.3 2.9 2.6 0.6
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 12.8
HCM 6th LOS B
Sterling Natural Resource Center Ex + C PM
2: Del Rosa Dr & 5th St 05/30/2019
Sterling Natural Resource Center 09/22/2016 Ex + C PM Synchro 10 Report
Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 71 412 30 7 112 32 18 359 25 35 184 23
Future Volume (veh/h) 71 412 30 7 112 32 18 359 25 35 184 23
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.99 0.97 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 75 434 32 7 118 34 19 378 26 37 194 24
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222
Cap, veh/h 191 795 58 100 734 198 119 1664 111 274 1326 164
Arrive On Green 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52
Sat Flow, veh/h 316 2840 206 43 2623 708 61 3214 215 329 2561 317
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 283 0 258 85 0 74 223 0 200 131 0 124
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1704 0 1657 1826 0 1548 1833 0 1658 1571 0 1636
Q Serve(g_s), s 2.7 0.0 5.9 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 2.9 0.0 0.0 1.8
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.1 0.0 5.9 1.5 0.0 1.6 2.9 0.0 2.9 1.6 0.0 1.8
Prop In Lane 0.26 0.12 0.08 0.46 0.09 0.13 0.28 0.19
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 579 0 464 599 0 433 1037 0 858 917 0 847
V/C Ratio(X) 0.49 0.00 0.56 0.14 0.00 0.17 0.21 0.00 0.23 0.14 0.00 0.15
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 970 0 858 1009 0 801 1037 0 858 917 0 847
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 13.6 0.0 13.6 12.1 0.0 12.1 5.9 0.0 5.9 5.6 0.0 5.6
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.6 0.0 1.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.0 0.6 0.3 0.0 0.4
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.1 0.0 2.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.9 0.0 0.9 0.5 0.0 0.5
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 14.3 0.0 14.7 12.2 0.0 12.3 6.3 0.0 6.5 5.9 0.0 6.0
LnGrp LOS BABBABAAAAAA
Approach Vol, veh/h 541 159 423 255
Approach Delay, s/veh 14.5 12.2 6.4 5.9
Approach LOS BBAA
Timer - Assigned Phs 2468
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 27.5 16.9 27.5 16.9
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.9 8.1 3.8 3.6
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.3 2.9 1.4 0.8
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 10.2
HCM 6th LOS B
Sterling Natural Resource Center Ex + C PM
3: Tippecanoe Ave & 3rd St 05/30/2019
Sterling Natural Resource Center 09/22/2016 Ex + C PM Synchro 10 Report
Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 49 714 65 211 249 49 57 553 578 42 353 33
Future Volume (veh/h) 49 714 65 211 249 49 57 553 578 42 353 33
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 56 811 74 240 283 56 65 628 657 48 401 38
Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222
Cap, veh/h 72 966 88 249 1158 502 84 1449 745 67 1304 123
Arrive On Green 0.04 0.29 0.29 0.07 0.33 0.33 0.05 0.41 0.41 0.04 0.40 0.40
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3283 300 3456 3554 1541 1781 3554 1546 1781 3274 308
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 56 439 446 240 283 56 65 628 657 48 217 222
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1806 1728 1777 1541 1781 1777 1546 1781 1777 1806
Q Serve(g_s), s 3.0 22.1 22.2 6.6 5.6 2.4 3.5 12.2 36.8 2.5 8.0 8.1
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.0 22.1 22.2 6.6 5.6 2.4 3.5 12.2 36.8 2.5 8.0 8.1
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.17 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.17
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 72 523 531 249 1158 502 84 1449 745 67 708 719
V/C Ratio(X) 0.78 0.84 0.84 0.96 0.24 0.11 0.77 0.43 0.88 0.72 0.31 0.31
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 97 576 585 249 1215 527 168 1453 746 93 708 719
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 45.5 31.6 31.6 44.2 23.6 22.6 45.1 20.4 22.5 45.5 19.7 19.7
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 23.8 9.9 9.8 46.5 0.1 0.1 14.0 0.2 12.0 14.5 0.2 0.2
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.8 10.7 10.9 4.4 2.3 0.9 1.8 4.9 15.0 1.4 3.3 3.4
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 69.3 41.6 41.4 90.8 23.7 22.6 59.0 20.6 34.5 60.1 20.0 20.0
LnGrp LOS E D D F C C E C C E B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 941 579 1350 487
Approach Delay, s/veh 43.1 51.4 29.2 23.9
Approach LOS DDCC
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.1 43.5 11.4 32.6 9.0 42.6 8.4 35.7
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 39.1 6.9 31.0 9.0 35.1 5.2 32.7
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.5 38.8 8.6 24.2 5.5 10.1 5.0 7.6
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.2 0.0 3.1 0.0 2.7 0.0 2.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 36.2
HCM 6th LOS D
Sterling Natural Resource Center Ex + C PM
4: Tippecanoe Ave & San Bernardino Ave 05/30/2019
Sterling Natural Resource Center 09/22/2016 Ex + C PM Synchro 10 Report
Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 157 570 130 55 273 151 107 729 104 216 682 65
Future Volume (veh/h) 157 570 130 55 273 151 107 729 104 216 682 65
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 169 613 140 59 294 162 115 784 112 232 733 70
Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222
Cap, veh/h 453 726 165 336 416 222 120 889 127 290 989 94
Arrive On Green 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.07 0.29 0.29 0.08 0.30 0.30
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 2854 650 1781 2204 1175 1781 3107 444 3456 3268 312
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 169 381 372 59 235 221 115 448 448 232 398 405
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1728 1781 1777 1603 1781 1777 1774 1728 1777 1803
Q Serve(g_s), s 7.5 19.6 19.7 2.7 11.9 12.5 6.2 23.2 23.2 6.4 19.4 19.5
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.5 19.6 19.7 2.7 11.9 12.5 6.2 23.2 23.2 6.4 19.4 19.5
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.38 1.00 0.73 1.00 0.25 1.00 0.17
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 453 452 440 336 336 303 120 508 507 290 538 546
V/C Ratio(X) 0.37 0.84 0.85 0.18 0.70 0.73 0.96 0.88 0.88 0.80 0.74 0.74
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 499 498 484 499 498 449 120 551 550 290 581 589
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 29.6 34.1 34.1 32.8 36.5 36.8 44.8 32.9 32.9 43.4 30.2 30.2
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.5 11.6 12.2 0.2 2.7 3.4 68.7 14.7 14.7 14.5 4.7 4.6
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.3 9.7 9.6 1.2 5.3 5.1 5.0 11.8 11.8 3.3 8.8 8.9
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 30.1 45.7 46.4 33.0 39.2 40.2 113.5 47.5 47.6 57.9 34.9 34.9
LnGrp LOS CDDCDDFDDECC
Approach Vol, veh/h 922 515 1011 1035
Approach Delay, s/veh 43.1 38.9 55.1 40.0
Approach LOS D D E D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.6 32.1 29.0 11.0 33.7 22.7
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 8.1 29.9 27.0 6.5 31.5 27.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.4 25.2 21.7 8.2 21.5 14.5
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.3 2.4 0.0 3.6 2.4
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 45.0
HCM 6th LOS D
Sterling Natural Resource Center Ex + C PM
5: Tippecanoe Ave & Harriman Place 05/30/2019
Sterling Natural Resource Center 09/22/2016 Ex + C PM Synchro 10 Report
Page 5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 170 0 738 227 242 306 338 687 668 0 1237 181
Future Volume (veh/h) 170 0 738 227 242 306 338 687 668 0 1237 181
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.98
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 0 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 0 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 187 0 811 249 318 301 371 755 734 0 1359 199
Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91
Percent Heavy Veh, %202222222022
Cap, veh/h 199 0 0 322 438 358 406 2819 844 0 1498 619
Arrive On Green 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.23 0.23 0.12 0.55 0.55 0.00 0.40 0.40
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 187 3563 1870 1531 3456 5106 1529 0 3741 1546
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 187 105.6 249 318 301 371 755 734 0 1359 199
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 F 1781 1870 1531 1728 1702 1529 0 1870 1546
Q Serve(g_s), s 13.7 9.0 20.7 24.7 14.0 10.2 54.6 0.0 45.1 11.7
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 13.7 9.0 20.7 24.7 14.0 10.2 54.6 0.0 45.1 11.7
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 199 322 438 358 406 2819 844 0 1498 619
V/C Ratio(X) 0.94 0.77 0.73 0.84 0.91 0.27 0.87 0.00 0.91 0.32
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 199 1572 553 453 406 2819 844 0 1498 619
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 58.2 58.7 46.6 48.1 57.5 15.5 25.4 0.0 37.2 27.2
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 47.4 4.0 3.5 10.8 24.7 0.2 11.8 0.0 9.6 1.4
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 8.8 4.3 10.1 10.5 7.5 4.1 21.9 0.0 22.4 4.6
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 105.6 62.6 50.1 59.0 82.2 15.8 37.3 0.0 46.8 28.6
LnGrp LOS F E D E F B D A D C
Approach Vol, veh/h 868 1860 1558
Approach Delay, s/veh 56.8 37.5 44.5
Approach LOS E D D
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 5678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 77.3 16.4 20.0 57.3 19.2 35.4
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 72.8 58.2 15.5 52.8 14.7 39.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 56.6 11.0 16.0 47.1 15.7 26.7
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 7.9 0.9 0.0 4.3 0.0 2.5
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 46.5
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.
Sterling Natural Resource Center Ex + C PM
6: Anderson St & I-10 EB Ramps 05/30/2019
Sterling Natural Resource Center 09/22/2016 Ex + C PM Synchro 10 Report
Page 6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 459 8 348 00001225 440 711 754 0
Future Volume (veh/h) 459 8 348 00001225 440 711 754 0
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 0 1870 1870 1870 1870 0
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 479 0 359 0 1263 454 733 777 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 022220
Cap, veh/h 641 0 547 0 1439 626 818 2491 0
Arrive On Green 0.18 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.40 0.40 0.24 0.70 0.00
Sat Flow, veh/h 3563 0 3041 0 3647 1546 3456 3647 0
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 479 0 359 0 1263 454 733 777 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1521 0 1777 1546 1728 1777 0
Q Serve(g_s), s 9.6 0.0 8.3 0.0 24.8 18.7 15.5 6.3 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.6 0.0 8.3 0.0 24.8 18.7 15.5 6.3 0.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 641 0 547 0 1439 626 818 2491 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0.75 0.00 0.66 0.00 0.88 0.73 0.90 0.31 0.00
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 848 0 724 0 1439 626 846 2491 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 29.4 0.0 28.8 0.0 20.8 18.9 28.0 4.3 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.6 0.0 1.3 0.0 7.9 7.2 12.0 0.3 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.2 0.0 3.0 0.0 11.0 7.4 7.5 1.8 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 32.0 0.0 30.2 0.0 28.6 26.1 40.0 4.7 0.0
LnGrp LOS C A C A C C D A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 838 1717 1510
Approach Delay, s/veh 31.2 28.0 21.8
Approach LOS C C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 22.4 35.1 18.1 57.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 18.5 30.0 18.0 53.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 17.5 26.8 11.6 8.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.3 2.6 2.0 6.5
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 26.3
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.
Sterling Natural Resource Center Ex + C + P AM
1: Tippecanoe Ave & 5th St 05/30/2019
Sterling Natural Resource Center 09/22/2016 Ex + C + P AM Synchro 10 Report
Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 57 120 48 38 296 25 38 279 18 23 510 46
Future Volume (veh/h) 57 120 48 38 296 25 38 279 18 23 510 46
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 0.99 0.97 1.00 0.96 0.99 0.96
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 67 141 56 45 348 29 45 328 21 27 600 54
Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222
Cap, veh/h 282 574 473 428 574 473 460 1782 113 621 1730 155
Arrive On Green 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53
Sat Flow, veh/h 1001 1870 1540 1178 1870 1540 776 3383 215 1026 3286 295
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 67 141 56 45 348 29 45 171 178 27 324 330
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1001 1870 1540 1178 1870 1540 776 1777 1822 1026 1777 1804
Q Serve(g_s), s 3.3 3.1 1.4 1.6 8.6 0.7 1.9 2.7 2.8 0.8 5.7 5.7
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 11.9 3.1 1.4 4.7 8.6 0.7 7.7 2.7 2.8 3.5 5.7 5.7
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.12 1.00 0.16
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 282 574 473 428 574 473 460 936 960 621 936 950
V/C Ratio(X) 0.24 0.25 0.12 0.11 0.61 0.06 0.10 0.18 0.19 0.04 0.35 0.35
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 483 950 782 665 950 782 460 936 960 621 936 950
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 21.0 14.1 13.5 15.8 16.0 13.2 9.6 6.7 6.7 7.6 7.4 7.4
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 1.0 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.1 1.0 1.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.7 1.2 0.5 0.4 3.4 0.2 0.3 0.9 0.9 0.2 1.9 2.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 21.4 14.3 13.6 15.9 17.0 13.3 10.1 7.1 7.1 7.8 8.4 8.4
LnGrp LOS C BBBBBBAAAAA
Approach Vol, veh/h 264 422 394 681
Approach Delay, s/veh 15.9 16.6 7.5 8.4
Approach LOS BBAA
Timer - Assigned Phs 2468
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 33.0 21.1 33.0 21.1
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 28.5 27.5 28.5 27.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.7 13.9 7.7 10.6
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.2 1.0 4.2 2.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 11.3
HCM 6th LOS B
Sterling Natural Resource Center Ex + C + P AM
2: Del Rosa Dr & 5th St 05/30/2019
Sterling Natural Resource Center 09/22/2016 Ex + C + P AM Synchro 10 Report
Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 68 81 19 16 267 42 15 192 6 16 318 73
Future Volume (veh/h) 68 81 19 16 267 42 15 192 6 16 318 73
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.99 0.97 0.99 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 80 95 22 19 314 49 18 226 7 19 374 86
Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222
Cap, veh/h 300 381 94 110 756 114 162 1707 52 115 1470 325
Arrive On Green 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53
Sat Flow, veh/h 577 1474 364 74 2924 442 126 3202 98 48 2758 611
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 99 0 98 204 0 178 131 0 120 257 0 222
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 792 0 1622 1835 0 1605 1743 0 1682 1840 0 1576
Q Serve(g_s), s 2.6 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 3.3
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.6 0.0 2.1 3.9 0.0 4.0 1.5 0.0 1.6 3.2 0.0 3.3
Prop In Lane 0.81 0.22 0.09 0.28 0.14 0.06 0.07 0.39
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 356 0 419 565 0 415 1024 0 897 1070 0 840
V/C Ratio(X) 0.28 0.00 0.23 0.36 0.00 0.43 0.13 0.00 0.13 0.24 0.00 0.26
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 660 0 865 1057 0 856 1024 0 897 1070 0 840
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 15.1 0.0 12.6 13.3 0.0 13.3 5.1 0.0 5.1 5.5 0.0 5.5
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.4 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.7 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.5 0.0 0.8
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.8 0.0 0.7 1.4 0.0 1.3 0.5 0.0 0.4 1.0 0.0 0.9
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 15.5 0.0 12.9 13.7 0.0 14.0 5.3 0.0 5.4 6.0 0.0 6.2
LnGrp LOS BABBABAAAAAA
Approach Vol, veh/h 197 382 251 479
Approach Delay, s/veh 14.2 13.9 5.3 6.1
Approach LOS BBAA
Timer - Assigned Phs 2468
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 27.5 15.6 27.5 15.6
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.6 8.6 5.3 6.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.3 1.0 2.7 2.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 9.4
HCM 6th LOS A
Sterling Natural Resource Center Ex + C + P AM
3: Tippecanoe Ave & 3rd St 05/30/2019
Sterling Natural Resource Center 09/22/2016 Ex + C + P AM Synchro 10 Report
Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 33 204 41 333 600 34 46 265 167 38 470 35
Future Volume (veh/h) 33 204 41 333 600 34 46 265 167 38 470 35
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 38 232 47 378 682 39 52 301 190 43 534 40
Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222
Cap, veh/h 70 721 143 389 1131 490 87 1021 620 77 941 70
Arrive On Green 0.04 0.25 0.25 0.11 0.32 0.32 0.05 0.29 0.29 0.04 0.28 0.28
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 2937 582 3456 3554 1541 1781 3554 1538 1781 3343 250
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 38 138 141 378 682 39 52 301 190 43 283 291
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1742 1728 1777 1541 1781 1777 1538 1781 1777 1816
Q Serve(g_s), s 1.2 3.7 3.8 6.3 9.4 1.0 1.7 3.8 4.9 1.4 7.9 7.9
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.2 3.7 3.8 6.3 9.4 1.0 1.7 3.8 4.9 1.4 7.9 7.9
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.14
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 70 436 427 389 1131 490 87 1021 620 77 500 511
V/C Ratio(X) 0.54 0.32 0.33 0.97 0.60 0.08 0.60 0.29 0.31 0.56 0.57 0.57
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 194 953 935 389 1919 832 216 2430 1230 154 1153 1179
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 27.2 17.8 17.9 25.5 16.6 13.8 26.9 16.0 11.9 27.1 17.7 17.8
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 6.3 0.4 0.4 38.2 0.5 0.1 6.4 0.2 0.3 6.2 1.0 1.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.6 1.4 1.5 4.5 3.5 0.3 0.8 1.4 1.5 0.7 3.1 3.1
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 33.5 18.3 18.3 63.7 17.1 13.8 33.3 16.2 12.1 33.3 18.7 18.7
LnGrp LOS C BBEBBCBBCBB
Approach Vol, veh/h 317 1099 543 617
Approach Delay, s/veh 20.1 33.0 16.4 19.8
Approach LOS C C B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.0 21.1 11.0 18.7 7.3 20.8 6.8 22.9
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 39.5 6.5 31.0 7.0 37.5 6.3 31.2
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.4 6.9 8.3 5.8 3.7 9.9 3.2 11.4
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.8 0.0 1.6 0.0 3.7 0.0 4.8
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 24.8
HCM 6th LOS C
Sterling Natural Resource Center Ex + C + P AM
4: Tippecanoe Ave & San Bernardino Ave 05/30/2019
Sterling Natural Resource Center 09/22/2016 Ex + C + P AM Synchro 10 Report
Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 89 179 138 86 231 103 82 553 57 112 600 54
Future Volume (veh/h) 89 179 138 86 231 103 82 553 57 112 600 54
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 105 211 162 101 272 121 96 651 67 132 706 64
Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222
Cap, veh/h 334 362 262 338 453 195 123 1008 104 221 1005 91
Arrive On Green 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.07 0.31 0.31 0.06 0.31 0.31
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1933 1396 1781 2387 1027 1781 3242 333 3456 3286 298
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 105 193 180 101 200 193 96 356 362 132 382 388
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1552 1781 1777 1637 1781 1777 1799 1728 1777 1806
Q Serve(g_s), s 3.7 7.2 7.7 3.5 7.5 7.9 3.8 12.5 12.6 2.7 13.8 13.8
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.7 7.2 7.7 3.5 7.5 7.9 3.8 12.5 12.6 2.7 13.8 13.8
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.90 1.00 0.63 1.00 0.19 1.00 0.16
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 334 333 291 338 337 310 123 553 559 221 544 553
V/C Ratio(X) 0.31 0.58 0.62 0.30 0.59 0.62 0.78 0.64 0.65 0.60 0.70 0.70
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 662 661 577 662 661 609 164 773 783 305 766 779
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 25.5 26.9 27.1 25.3 26.9 27.0 33.2 21.6 21.6 33.1 22.3 22.3
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.5 1.6 2.1 0.5 1.7 2.0 15.5 1.3 1.3 2.6 1.7 1.6
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.6 3.1 2.9 1.5 3.2 3.1 2.1 5.1 5.2 1.2 5.6 5.7
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 26.0 28.5 29.3 25.8 28.5 29.1 48.8 22.8 22.8 35.6 23.9 23.9
LnGrp LOS CCCCCCDCCDCC
Approach Vol, veh/h 478 494 814 902
Approach Delay, s/veh 28.2 28.2 25.9 25.6
Approach LOS CCCC
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.2 27.1 18.1 9.5 26.7 18.3
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 6.4 31.6 27.0 6.7 31.3 27.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.7 14.6 9.7 5.8 15.8 9.9
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 4.2 2.4 0.0 4.4 2.5
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 26.6
HCM 6th LOS C
Sterling Natural Resource Center Ex + C + P AM
5: Tippecanoe Ave & Harriman Place 05/30/2019
Sterling Natural Resource Center 09/22/2016 Ex + C + P AM Synchro 10 Report
Page 5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 50 0 198 585 159 417 146 797 390 0 821 70
Future Volume (veh/h) 50 0 198 585 159 417 146 797 390 0 821 70
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.97
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 0 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 0 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 56 0 220 650 392 320 162 886 433 0 912 78
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Percent Heavy Veh, %202222222022
Cap, veh/h 78 0 0 811 528 434 238 2610 780 0 1451 599
Arrive On Green 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.28 0.28 0.07 0.51 0.51 0.00 0.39 0.39
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 56 3563 1870 1537 3456 5106 1527 0 3741 1545
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 56 50.8 650 392 320 162 886 433 0 912 78
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 D 1781 1870 1537 1728 1702 1527 0 1870 1545
Q Serve(g_s), s 2.6 14.3 15.8 15.6 3.8 8.5 16.0 0.0 16.3 2.7
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.6 14.3 15.8 15.6 3.8 8.5 16.0 0.0 16.3 2.7
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 78 811 528 434 238 2610 780 0 1451 599
V/C Ratio(X) 0.72 0.80 0.74 0.74 0.68 0.34 0.55 0.00 0.63 0.13
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 112 2096 881 724 280 2610 780 0 1451 599
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 39.1 30.2 27.0 26.9 37.6 12.0 13.8 0.0 20.5 16.3
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 11.7 1.9 2.1 2.5 5.3 0.4 2.8 0.0 2.1 0.4
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.4 6.1 7.1 5.8 1.7 3.1 5.7 0.0 7.2 1.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 50.8 32.1 29.1 29.4 43.0 12.3 16.6 0.0 22.6 16.8
LnGrp LOS D CCCDBBACB
Approach Vol, veh/h 1362 1481 990
Approach Delay, s/veh 30.6 16.9 22.1
Approach LOS C B C
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 5678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 46.8 23.3 10.2 36.6 8.1 27.8
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 42.3 48.7 6.7 31.1 5.2 39.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 18.0 16.3 5.8 18.3 4.6 17.8
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 8.8 2.6 0.0 5.4 0.0 3.6
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 23.5
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.
Sterling Natural Resource Center Ex + C + P AM
6: Anderson St & I-10 EB Ramps 05/30/2019
Sterling Natural Resource Center 09/22/2016 Ex + C + P AM Synchro 10 Report
Page 6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 630 2 631 00006943122099180
Future Volume (veh/h) 630 2 631 00006943122099180
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 0 1870 1870 1870 1870 0
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 671 0 671 0 738 332 222 977 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 022220
Cap, veh/h 1040 0 895 0 1256 545 333 1904 0
Arrive On Green 0.29 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.35 0.35 0.10 0.54 0.00
Sat Flow, veh/h 3563 0 3066 0 3647 1543 3456 3647 0
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 671 0 671 0 738 332 222 977 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1533 0 1777 1543 1728 1777 0
Q Serve(g_s), s 8.6 0.0 10.4 0.0 8.9 9.3 3.2 9.2 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.6 0.0 10.4 0.0 8.9 9.3 3.2 9.2 0.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1040 0 895 0 1256 545 333 1904 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0.65 0.00 0.75 0.00 0.59 0.61 0.67 0.51 0.00
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1227 0 1056 0 1256 545 351 1904 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 16.1 0.0 16.8 0.0 13.8 13.9 22.8 7.8 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.9 0.0 2.5 0.0 2.0 5.0 4.5 1.0 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.2 0.0 3.5 0.0 3.4 3.5 1.4 2.9 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 17.0 0.0 19.3 0.0 15.8 18.9 27.3 8.8 0.0
LnGrp LOS B A B A B B C A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 1342 1070 1199
Approach Delay, s/veh 18.2 16.8 12.2
Approach LOS B B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.5 23.0 19.8 32.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.3 18.2 18.0 28.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.2 11.3 12.4 11.2
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.5 2.9 6.5
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 15.8
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.
Sterling Natural Resource Center Ex + C + P PM
1: Tippecanoe Ave & 5th St 05/30/2019
Sterling Natural Resource Center 09/22/2016 Ex + C + P PM Synchro 10 Report
Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 75 459 59 30 119 31 74 562 37 37 353 40
Future Volume (veh/h) 75 459 59 30 119 31 74 562 37 37 353 40
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.99 0.97 1.00 0.97 0.99 0.96 1.00 0.96
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 81 494 63 32 128 33 80 604 40 40 380 43
Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222
Cap, veh/h 486 644 531 218 644 531 539 1681 111 430 1598 179
Arrive On Green 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
Sat Flow, veh/h 1217 1870 1542 850 1870 1542 959 3374 223 783 3206 360
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 81 494 63 32 128 33 80 318 326 40 209 214
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1217 1870 1542 850 1870 1542 959 1777 1820 783 1777 1789
Q Serve(g_s), s 2.9 13.5 1.6 2.0 2.8 0.8 3.0 6.2 6.3 1.9 3.8 3.9
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.6 13.5 1.6 15.5 2.8 0.8 6.9 6.2 6.3 8.2 3.8 3.9
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.12 1.00 0.20
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 486 644 531 218 644 531 539 885 907 430 885 892
V/C Ratio(X) 0.17 0.77 0.12 0.15 0.20 0.06 0.15 0.36 0.36 0.09 0.24 0.24
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 653 899 742 335 899 742 539 885 907 430 885 892
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 15.2 16.7 12.8 23.6 13.2 12.6 10.1 8.8 8.8 11.3 8.2 8.2
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 2.6 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.6 1.1 1.1 0.4 0.6 0.6
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.7 5.5 0.5 0.4 1.1 0.3 0.6 2.2 2.3 0.3 1.4 1.4
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 15.3 19.3 12.9 23.9 13.3 12.6 10.7 9.9 9.9 11.7 8.8 8.8
LnGrp LOS B B B C BBBAABAA
Approach Vol, veh/h 638 193 724 463
Approach Delay, s/veh 18.2 15.0 10.0 9.0
Approach LOS BBAA
Timer - Assigned Phs 2468
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 33.0 24.2 33.0 24.2
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 28.5 27.5 28.5 27.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.9 15.5 10.2 17.5
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 4.3 2.9 2.6 0.6
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 12.8
HCM 6th LOS B
Sterling Natural Resource Center Ex + C + P PM
2: Del Rosa Dr & 5th St 05/30/2019
Sterling Natural Resource Center 09/22/2016 Ex + C + P PM Synchro 10 Report
Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 81 412 30 7 112 32 18 359 25 35 184 33
Future Volume (veh/h) 81 412 30 7 112 32 18 359 25 35 184 33
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.99 0.97 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 85 434 32 7 118 34 19 378 26 37 194 35
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222
Cap, veh/h 207 788 57 99 745 201 119 1654 111 262 1260 226
Arrive On Green 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51
Sat Flow, veh/h 362 2774 202 43 2624 708 61 3214 215 311 2448 439
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 288 0 263 85 0 74 223 0 200 138 0 128
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1680 0 1658 1827 0 1549 1832 0 1658 1586 0 1611
Q Serve(g_s), s 3.3 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 1.9
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.3 0.0 6.0 1.5 0.0 1.6 2.9 0.0 3.0 1.7 0.0 1.9
Prop In Lane 0.30 0.12 0.08 0.46 0.09 0.13 0.27 0.27
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 581 0 471 606 0 440 1030 0 853 919 0 829
V/C Ratio(X) 0.49 0.00 0.56 0.14 0.00 0.17 0.22 0.00 0.23 0.15 0.00 0.15
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 955 0 853 1004 0 797 1030 0 853 919 0 829
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 13.6 0.0 13.6 12.0 0.0 12.0 6.0 0.0 6.0 5.7 0.0 5.7
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.7 0.0 1.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.0 0.6 0.3 0.0 0.4
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.2 0.0 2.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.9 0.0 0.9 0.6 0.0 0.5
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 14.3 0.0 14.7 12.1 0.0 12.2 6.5 0.0 6.6 6.0 0.0 6.1
LnGrp LOS BABBABAAAAAA
Approach Vol, veh/h 551 159 423 266
Approach Delay, s/veh 14.5 12.2 6.5 6.1
Approach LOS BBAA
Timer - Assigned Phs 2468
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 27.5 17.2 27.5 17.2
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.0 8.3 3.9 3.6
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.3 3.0 1.5 0.8
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 10.2
HCM 6th LOS B
Sterling Natural Resource Center Ex + C + P PM
3: Tippecanoe Ave & 3rd St 05/30/2019
Sterling Natural Resource Center 09/22/2016 Ex + C + P PM Synchro 10 Report
Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 49 714 65 211 249 49 57 563 578 42 363 33
Future Volume (veh/h) 49 714 65 211 249 49 57 563 578 42 363 33
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 56 811 74 240 283 56 65 640 657 48 412 38
Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222
Cap, veh/h 72 967 88 235 1144 496 84 1462 744 67 1319 121
Arrive On Green 0.04 0.29 0.29 0.07 0.32 0.32 0.05 0.41 0.41 0.04 0.40 0.40
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3283 300 3456 3554 1541 1781 3554 1546 1781 3283 301
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 56 439 446 240 283 56 65 640 657 48 222 228
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1806 1728 1777 1541 1781 1777 1546 1781 1777 1807
Q Serve(g_s), s 3.0 22.1 22.1 6.5 5.6 2.4 3.4 12.3 36.7 2.5 8.2 8.2
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.0 22.1 22.1 6.5 5.6 2.4 3.4 12.3 36.7 2.5 8.2 8.2
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.17 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.17
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 72 523 532 235 1144 496 84 1462 744 67 714 726
V/C Ratio(X) 0.78 0.84 0.84 1.02 0.25 0.11 0.77 0.44 0.88 0.71 0.31 0.31
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 110 577 586 235 1180 511 172 1470 747 93 714 726
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 45.4 31.6 31.6 44.5 23.8 22.8 45.0 20.2 22.5 45.4 19.5 19.6
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 17.0 9.8 9.7 64.0 0.1 0.1 13.9 0.2 12.1 14.4 0.2 0.2
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.6 10.6 10.8 4.8 2.3 0.9 1.8 5.0 15.0 1.4 3.3 3.4
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 62.4 41.4 41.3 108.5 24.0 22.9 58.9 20.4 34.6 59.9 19.8 19.8
LnGrp LOS E D D F C C E C C E B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 941 579 1362 498
Approach Delay, s/veh 42.6 58.9 29.1 23.6
Approach LOS D E C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.1 43.8 11.0 32.6 9.0 42.9 8.4 35.3
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 39.5 6.5 31.0 9.2 35.3 5.9 31.7
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.5 38.7 8.5 24.1 5.4 10.2 5.0 7.6
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.5 0.0 3.1 0.0 2.8 0.0 2.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 37.2
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
Sterling Natural Resource Center Ex + C + P PM
4: Tippecanoe Ave & San Bernardino Ave 05/30/2019
Sterling Natural Resource Center 09/22/2016 Ex + C + P PM Synchro 10 Report
Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 157 570 130 55 273 151 107 739 104 216 692 65
Future Volume (veh/h) 157 570 130 55 273 151 107 739 104 216 692 65
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 169 613 140 59 294 162 115 795 112 232 744 70
Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222
Cap, veh/h 452 725 165 336 416 222 120 896 126 289 996 94
Arrive On Green 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.07 0.29 0.29 0.08 0.30 0.30
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 2854 650 1781 2204 1175 1781 3114 439 3456 3273 308
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 169 381 372 59 235 221 115 454 453 232 404 410
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1728 1781 1777 1603 1781 1777 1776 1728 1777 1804
Q Serve(g_s), s 7.6 19.7 19.8 2.7 12.0 12.6 6.2 23.6 23.6 6.4 19.8 19.8
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.6 19.7 19.8 2.7 12.0 12.6 6.2 23.6 23.6 6.4 19.8 19.8
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.38 1.00 0.73 1.00 0.25 1.00 0.17
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 452 451 439 336 335 302 120 511 511 289 540 549
V/C Ratio(X) 0.37 0.84 0.85 0.18 0.70 0.73 0.96 0.89 0.89 0.80 0.75 0.75
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 497 496 482 497 496 447 120 549 549 289 578 587
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 29.7 34.3 34.3 32.9 36.7 36.9 45.0 33.0 33.0 43.5 30.3 30.3
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.5 11.8 12.4 0.2 2.7 3.4 69.9 15.5 15.5 14.9 5.0 4.9
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.3 9.8 9.6 1.2 5.4 5.1 5.1 12.1 12.1 3.3 9.0 9.1
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 30.3 46.1 46.7 33.2 39.4 40.3 114.9 48.4 48.5 58.4 35.3 35.2
LnGrp LOS CDDCDDFDDEDD
Approach Vol, veh/h 922 515 1022 1046
Approach Delay, s/veh 43.4 39.1 55.9 40.4
Approach LOS D D E D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.6 32.3 29.1 11.0 33.9 22.8
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 8.1 29.9 27.0 6.5 31.5 27.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.4 25.6 21.8 8.2 21.8 14.6
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.2 2.4 0.0 3.6 2.4
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 45.5
HCM 6th LOS D
Sterling Natural Resource Center Ex + C + P PM
5: Tippecanoe Ave & Harriman Place 05/30/2019
Sterling Natural Resource Center 09/22/2016 Ex + C + P PM Synchro 10 Report
Page 5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 170 0 738 227 242 311 338 692 668 0 1247 181
Future Volume (veh/h) 170 0 738 227 242 311 338 692 668 0 1247 181
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.98
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 0 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 0 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 187 0 811 249 323 304 371 760 734 0 1370 199
Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91
Percent Heavy Veh, %202222222022
Cap, veh/h 198 0 0 322 441 361 405 2813 842 0 1495 618
Arrive On Green 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.24 0.24 0.12 0.55 0.55 0.00 0.40 0.40
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 187 3563 1870 1532 3456 5106 1529 0 3741 1546
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 187 106.2 249 323 304 371 760 734 0 1370 199
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 F 1781 1870 1532 1728 1702 1529 0 1870 1546
Q Serve(g_s), s 13.8 9.0 21.1 25.0 14.0 10.4 54.8 0.0 45.8 11.7
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 13.8 9.0 21.1 25.0 14.0 10.4 54.8 0.0 45.8 11.7
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 198 322 441 361 405 2813 842 0 1495 618
V/C Ratio(X) 0.94 0.77 0.73 0.84 0.92 0.27 0.87 0.00 0.92 0.32
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 198 1569 552 452 405 2813 842 0 1495 618
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 58.3 58.8 46.7 48.2 57.7 15.6 25.6 0.0 37.6 27.3
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 47.9 4.0 3.8 11.2 25.1 0.2 12.0 0.0 10.4 1.4
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 8.9 4.3 10.3 10.7 7.5 4.1 22.0 0.0 22.9 4.6
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 106.2 62.8 50.5 59.4 82.7 15.9 37.6 0.0 47.9 28.7
LnGrp LOS F E D E F B D A D C
Approach Vol, veh/h 876 1865 1569
Approach Delay, s/veh 57.0 37.7 45.5
Approach LOS E D D
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 5678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 77.3 16.4 20.0 57.3 19.2 35.6
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 72.8 58.2 15.5 52.8 14.7 39.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 56.8 11.0 16.0 47.8 15.8 27.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 7.9 0.9 0.0 3.8 0.0 2.5
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 47.1
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.
Sterling Natural Resource Center Ex + C + P PM
6: Anderson St & I-10 EB Ramps 05/30/2019
Sterling Natural Resource Center 09/22/2016 Ex + C + P PM Synchro 10 Report
Page 6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 464 8 348 00001225 440 716 754 0
Future Volume (veh/h) 464 8 348 00001225 440 716 754 0
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 0 1870 1870 1870 1870 0
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 484 0 359 0 1263 454 738 777 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 022220
Cap, veh/h 645 0 551 0 1433 623 821 2488 0
Arrive On Green 0.18 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.40 0.40 0.24 0.70 0.00
Sat Flow, veh/h 3563 0 3042 0 3647 1546 3456 3647 0
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 484 0 359 0 1263 454 738 777 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1521 0 1777 1546 1728 1777 0
Q Serve(g_s), s 9.7 0.0 8.3 0.0 24.9 18.8 15.7 6.4 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.7 0.0 8.3 0.0 24.9 18.8 15.7 6.4 0.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 645 0 551 0 1433 623 821 2488 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0.75 0.00 0.65 0.00 0.88 0.73 0.90 0.31 0.00
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 847 0 723 0 1433 623 844 2488 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 29.4 0.0 28.8 0.0 20.9 19.1 28.0 4.4 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.7 0.0 1.3 0.0 8.1 7.3 12.3 0.3 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.3 0.0 3.0 0.0 11.1 7.5 7.6 1.8 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 32.1 0.0 30.1 0.0 29.0 26.4 40.3 4.7 0.0
LnGrp LOS C A C A C C D A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 843 1717 1515
Approach Delay, s/veh 31.2 28.3 22.0
Approach LOS C C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 22.5 35.0 18.2 57.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 18.5 30.0 18.0 53.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 17.7 26.9 11.7 8.4
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.3 2.5 2.0 6.5
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 26.6
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.
East Valley Water District
Resolution 2019.11
Page 1 of 4
RESOLUTION 2019.11
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE EAST VALLEY WATER
DISTRICT ADOPTING THE ADDENDUM TO THE CERTIFIED ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT FOR THE STERLING NATURAL RESOURCE CENTER
WHEREAS, the East Valley Water District (EVWD) is the lead agency, pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code §§ 21000 et seq.) and
CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations §§ 15000 et seq.), for the proposed
Sterling Natural Resource Center (SNRC) Project; and
WHEREAS, the SNRC Project involves the construction of a wastewater treatment
facility and associated facilities that will provide tertiary treatment of wastewater generated
within the EVWD service area and make the treated water available for beneficial uses within
the Upper Santa Ana River watershed; and
WHEREAS, the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District (Valley District)
previously served as lead agency for the proposed SNRC Project; and
WHEREAS, On September 23, 2015, the EVWD Board of Directors approved a
Framework Agreement with Valley District, which became effective on October 6, 2015, that
outlined the terms of the cooperation between the parties and established Valley District as the
lead agency for the SNRC Project; and
WHEREAS, on March 15, 2016, Valley District approved a Resolution 1038 certifying
the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Sterling Natural Resource Center Project (SCH
#2015101058) and Resolution No. 1039 adopting CEQA Findings of Fact, a Statement of
Overriding Considerations, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Sterling
Natural Resource Center Project and approving the Sterling Natural Resource Center Project
SCH #2015101058); and
WHEREAS, on June 20, 2018, the San Bernardino Local Agency Formation
Commission held a public hearing and approved the activation of EVWD’s latent wastewater
treatment authority and included a condition requiring the transfer of all obligations as lead
agency for the SNRC Project from Valley District to EVWD within ninety (90) days. Thereafter
the Framework Agreement was terminated by the parties; and
WHEREAS, on July 11, 2018, EVWD’s Board of Directors voted to assume all EIR
obligations and implementation, monitoring, and reporting responsibilities for the SNRC Project
as lead agency; and
WHEREAS, since the certification of the 2016 EIR and the transfer of lead agency
responsibility to EVWD, EVWD has modified the SNRC Project to allow for: 1) consistent and
essential secondary storage of tertiary treated recycled water in the originally proposed detention
ponds to enable the SNRC to perform its wastewater treatment operations; 2) use modifications
to the Emergency Operations Center facility to provide additional monitoring and emergency
support for the wastewater treatment operations; 3) incorporation of an additional two-acre
parcel of land immediately adjacent to the original SNRC Project location; and 4) modifications
East Valley Water District
Resolution 2019.11
Page 2 of 4
to the SNRC to accept up to 670,000 gallons of food waste that would be used to increase the
energy production capacity of the facility; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA, when taking subsequent discretionary actions in
furtherance of a project for which an EIR has been certified, the lead agency is required to
review any changed circumstances to determine whether any of the circumstances under Public
Resources Code section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines section 15162 require additional
environmental review; and
WHEREAS, EVWD’s Board of Directors commissioned Environmental Science
Associates (ESA) to evaluate the environmental impact of the proposed modifications to the
SNRC Project EIR in light of the standards for subsequent environmental review outlined in
Public Resources Code section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines section 15162; and
WHEREAS, based on that evaluation, ESA concluded that the EIR had fully analyzed
and mitigated, where feasible, in compliance with CEQA, all potentially significant
environmental impacts, if any, that would result from the SNRC Project modifications, that the
impacts to the environment as a result of the modifications are consistent with and would not
create substantial new or increased impacts beyond those which were evaluated in the EIR, and
that, therefore, no subsequent EIR or mitigated negative declaration is now required; and
WHEREAS, as a result of the proposed modifications to the SNRC Project, and based on
ESA’s evaluation of the environmental impact of said modifications, ESA prepared an
Addendum pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164; and
WHEREAS, EVWD’s Board of Directors has reviewed and considered the information,
findings and conclusions contained in the Addendum to the EIR, including without limitation the
EIR and supporting documents.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Directors of East Valley
Water District on the basis of substantial evidence and based upon the whole record, as follows:
1. The Addendum was presented to the East Valley Water District Board of
Directors on July 24, 2019 and considered by the Board of Directors at its regularly scheduled
meeting of July 24, 2019, and had been independently reviewed and considered by the members
of the Board of Directors prior to that meeting.
2. The Addendum was prepared for the SNRC Project modifications in compliance
with the requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines and is adequate for EVWD’s use as
the lead agency under CEQA.
3. Based upon the evidence submitted and as demonstrated by the analysis included
in the Addendum, none of the conditions described in Sections 15162 or 15163 of the CEQA
Guidelines calling for the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR or negative
declaration have occurred; specifically:
a) The proposed modifications to the SNRC Project do not create substantial
changes which would require major revisions to the EIR due to the involvement of new
East Valley Water District
Resolution 2019.11
Page 3 of 4
significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified
significant effects; and
b) The proposed modifications to the SNRC Project do not create substantial
changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken which will
require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant
effects; and
c) There is no new information of substantial importance, which was not known and
could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the SNRC
Project EIR was certified as complete and adopted, that shows any of the following: (A) the
modifications will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the certified EIR; (B)
significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the
certified EIR; (C) mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would
in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the SNRC
Project, but the Project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (D)
mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the
certified EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but
the Project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measure or alternatives.
4. The evaluation of the proposed modifications to the SNRC Project, certified EIR,
and Addendum reflects the Board of Directors’ independent judgment and analysis based on the
Board of Directors’ review of the entirety of the administrative record, which record provides the
information upon which this resolution is based.
5. Pursuant to the above findings, the EVWD Board of Directors determines that the
SNRC Project EIR, together with this Addendum, satisfy all the requirements of CEQA and are
adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for the SNRC Project and,
therefore, hereby approves and adopts the Addendum for the proposed modifications to the
SNRC Project.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 24th day of July, 2019.
ROLL CALL:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
___________________________________
Chris Carrillo
Board President
East Valley Water District
Resolution 2019.11
Page 4 of 4
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of Resolution
2019.11 adopted by the Board of Directors of East Valley Water District at its Regular Meeting
held July 24, 2019.
___________________________________
John Mura
Secretary, Board of Directors
Prepared for
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water
District
December 2015
Draft Environmental Impact Report
STERLING NATURAL RESOURCE CENTER
Click here to view the Draft EIR
Due to the large size of this document, hard copies
are available at the District upon request.