HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - EVWD Board of Directors - 01/27/2021REGULAR BOARD MEETING / PUBLIC HEARING
VIA TELECONFERENCE
January 27, 2021 - 5:30 PM
31111 Greenspot Road, Highland, CA 92346
In an effort to prevent the spread of COVID-19 and in accordance with Governor
Newsom's Executive Order N-25-20 and N-29-20, this meeting is being conducted via
teleconference. There will be no public location for attending this meeting in person.
Members of the public may listen and provide public comment telephonically.
Anyone wishing to join the meeting may do so using the following information:
DIAL: 1-209-425-5876 and enter CONFERENCE ID: 381 567 063#
You may also join by clicking HERE to join the meeting via Microsoft Teams.
AGENDA
"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".
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL OF BOARD MEMBERS
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Any person wishing to speak to the Board of Directors is asked to complete a Speaker
Card and submit it to the District Clerk 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 California Brown Act, the Board of Directors is prohibited from discussing or taking
action on any item not listed on the posted agenda. The matter will automatically be
referred to staff for an appropriate response or action and may appear on the agenda at a
future meeting.
AGENDA - This 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.December 2020 D isbursements: Accounts payable disbursements for the
period include check numbers 257041 through 257184, bank drafts, and A C H
Payments in the amount of $17,572,787.91 and $416,407.15 for payroll.
b.Approve Investment Report for Quarter Ended December 31, 2020
D I SC U SSI ON AN D P O SSI B L E AC T I O N I T E MS
3.C onsider Approval of Resolution 2021.04 - a Resolution of Necessity Authorizing
Eminent Domain Proceedings to Acquire Property; public hearing.
4.C onsider A doption of Resolution 2021.05 - C ertifying Addendum No. 2 to the Final
Environmental Impact Report for the Sterling Natural Resource C enter
5.C onsider Approval of Project Modifications to the Sterling Natural Resource C enter
RE P O RT S
6.Board of Directors' Reports
7.General Manager/C EO Report
8.Legal Counsel Report
9.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.
B O AR D AGE N D A S TAF F R E P ORT
Agenda Item #2.a.
Meeting Date: January 27, 2021
C ons ent Item
To: G o verning Board Memb ers
F rom: G eneral Manager/C EO
Subject: Dec emb er 2020 Dis b ursements : Acc o unts payab le dis bursements for the period includ e c heck
numbers 257041 through 257184, b ank drafts, and AC H P ayments in the amo unt of $17,572,787.91
and $416,407.15 fo r p ayroll.
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 Dec emb er 1, 2020 thro ugh Dec emb er 31, 2020 in the amount o f $17,989,195.06.
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 Dec emb er 2020 is attac hed for review and approval. T his proc es s p ro vides the Board and the pub lic
an opportunity to review the exp ens es o f the District. Acc o unts P ayable is p ro ces s 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 257041 thro ugh 257184, bank drafts ,
and AC H P ayments in the amo unt o f $17,572,787.91 and $416,407.15, for p ayro ll. S ignific ant exp ens es 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 2020-21 Bud get.
ATTACH M E N TS:
Description Type
December 2020 P ayment Registe r Backup Material
PAYMENT REGISTER
DECEMBER 1, 2020 - DECEMBER 31, 2020
PAYMENT DATE NUMBER VENDOR NAME AMOUNT
12/3/2020 257041 AAIYSHA VALENTIN 100.00
12/3/2020 257042 AT&T 1,118.24
12/3/2020 257043 CASEY STOUT 150.00
12/3/2020 257044 CHRISTINA MORENO 2,418.25
12/3/2020 257045 COLONIAL LIFE, PREMIUM 547.00
12/3/2020 257046 DIRECTV 248.98
12/3/2020 257047 ELIAS TOUMEH 150.00
12/3/2020 257048 ELLIS STEVENS 100.00
12/3/2020 257049 EVERSOFT, INC 228.82
12/3/2020 257050 FedEx 64.24
12/3/2020 257051 HATFIELD BUICK 10.84
12/3/2020 257052 INLAND WATER WORKS SUPPLY CO 594.00
12/3/2020 257053 JOSE J MORENO 200.00
12/3/2020 257054 LINH LUU 200.00
12/3/2020 257055 LOGICALIS, INC 171,358.14
12/3/2020 257056 LUIS & JACQUELINE CURIEL 995.75
12/3/2020 257057 MARIAM FAM 90.00
12/3/2020 257058 MELODIE MERKLER 100.00
12/3/2020 257059 METROPOLITAN LIFE INS CO 93.30
12/3/2020 257060 NHUT TRUONG 60.00
12/3/2020 257061 SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL WATER DEPARTMENT 768,576.07
12/3/2020 257062 SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL WATER DEPARTMENT 17,944.94
12/3/2020 257063 SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL WATER DEPARTMENT 11,500.80
12/3/2020 257064 SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL WATER DEPARTMENT 732,631.61
12/3/2020 257065 SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL WATER DEPARTMENT 713,720.33
12/3/2020 257066 SO CAL GAS 416.53
12/3/2020 257067 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY 11,551.09
12/3/2020 257068 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EMERGENCY MEDICINE/COLTON 180.00
12/3/2020 257069 SWRCB 2,811.00
12/3/2020 257070 UNITED REFRIGERATION INC 6,199.74
12/3/2020 257071 UNIVERSEAL NORTH AMERICA INC 2,770.00
12/3/2020 257072 WILLIAM WILLSEY 230.00
12/9/2020 257078 VICTOR PERALTA-CASTILLO 49.24
12/9/2020 257079 KAMALJEET BERY 41.62
12/9/2020 257080 HERMAN WEISSKER 847.41
12/9/2020 257081 HOMESWEET M & M 370.51
12/9/2020 257082 ALEJANDRA FLORES 20.78
12/9/2020 257085 AFFORDABLE AUTO SERVICE, RAHIB ELAWAR 289.85
12/9/2020 257086 AIR CHIEF, INC. 366.50
12/9/2020 257087 ALBERT A. WEBB ASSOCIATES 3,903.04
12/9/2020 257088 AMERICAN FIDELITY ASSURANCE COMPANY 2,632.90
12/9/2020 257089 AUTO ZONE, INC. 4.11
12/9/2020 257090 BURRTEC WASTE (GROUP) INDUSTRIES, INC. 1,706.16
12/9/2020 257091 BURRTEC WASTE (GROUP) INDUSTRIES, INC. 395.63
PAYMENT REGISTER
DECEMBER 1, 2020 - DECEMBER 31, 2020 Page 1 of 6
PAYMENT DATE NUMBER VENDOR NAME AMOUNT
12/9/2020 257092 BURRTEC WASTE (GROUP) INDUSTRIES, INC. 153.39
12/9/2020 257093 BURRTEC WASTE (GROUP) INDUSTRIES, INC. 153.39
12/9/2020 257094 BURRTEC WASTE (GROUP) INDUSTRIES, INC. 1,263.49
12/9/2020 257095 CAL VALVE 2,761.85
12/9/2020 257096 CHEM-TECH INTERNATIONAL INC 27,863.27
12/9/2020 257097 CULLIGAN OF ONTARIO 126.60
12/9/2020 257098 DAILY JOURNAL CORPORATION 259.60
12/9/2020 257099 DUKE'S ROOT CONTROL, INC. 20,688.16
12/9/2020 257100 EXPERIAN 280.60
12/9/2020 257101 EYE MED VISION CARE 1,436.68
12/9/2020 257102 FedEx 25.21
12/9/2020 257103 FIRST CHOICE SERVICES 183.60
12/9/2020 257104 FLEET MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT 468.84
12/9/2020 257105 GOLDEN BELL PRODUCTS, INC 55,132.00
12/9/2020 257106 IB CONSULTING, LLC 13,260.00
12/9/2020 257107 INLAND WATER WORKS SUPPLY CO 3,800.36
12/9/2020 257108 K & L HARDWARE 12.48
12/9/2020 257109 KOPPEL & GRUBER PUBLIC FINANCE 3,510.00
12/9/2020 257110 LOWE'S 340.67
12/9/2020 257111 NASSAU LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY 66.74
12/9/2020 257112 PROMANTEK, INC. C/O SYSTEM SIX BOOKEEPING 5,108.00
12/9/2020 257113 QUADIENT FINANCE USA, INC. 6,129.50
12/9/2020 257114 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY 26.91
12/9/2020 257115 LUIS HERNANDEZ 992.87
12/9/2020 257116 ACS SUPPORT 26.00
12/9/2020 257117 AMAZON.COM, LLC 2,476.28
12/9/2020 257118 AMERICAN FIDELITY ASSURANCE COMPANY (FSA) 1,095.41
12/10/2020 257083 RODRIGO HERRERA 150.00
12/10/2020 257084 JASON MARTINELLI 2,331.77
12/10/2020 257119 RYAN MITCHELL 53.53
12/10/2020 257120 THE SALVATION ARMY 60.17
12/10/2020 257121 THE SALVATION ARMY 36.01
12/10/2020 257122 BRIAN DAVILA 130.88
12/10/2020 257123 SOUTH COASTAL INVESTMENTS 135.67
12/10/2020 257124 ALICE SUAREZ 66.43
12/16/2020 257125 AT&T 50.14
12/16/2020 257126 BALFOUR BEATTY INFRASTRUCTURE, INC 7,361,796.05
12/16/2020 257127 CALIFORNIA BANK & TRUST 13,236.94
12/16/2020 257128 CALIFORNIA BANK & TRUST 262,745.66
12/16/2020 257129 CHICAGO TITLE COMPANY 800.00
12/16/2020 257130 DIB'S SAFE & LOCK SERVICE 33.67
12/16/2020 257131 FedEx 31.30
12/16/2020 257132 FIRST CHOICE SERVICES 241.69
12/16/2020 257133 HIGHLAND COMMUNITY NEWS/PUBLISHING INC 1,050.00
12/16/2020 257134 INLAND WATER WORKS SUPPLY CO 2,047.51
12/16/2020 257135 K & L HARDWARE 55.89
12/16/2020 257136 LOGICALIS, INC 1,711.20
12/16/2020 257137 RUHNAU CLARKE ARCHITECTS 298.50
12/16/2020 257138 SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL WATER DEPARTMENT 680,766.37
12/16/2020 257139 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY 162,417.95
12/16/2020 257140 SWRCB 1,389.00
12/21/2020 257142 ADRIANA BLACKWIN 150.00
12/21/2020 257143 ALFREDO RUIZ 150.00
PAYMENT REGISTER
DECEMBER 1, 2020 - DECEMBER 31, 2020 Page 2 of 6
PAYMENT DATE NUMBER VENDOR NAME AMOUNT
12/21/2020 257144 ANDRE STOKES 150.00
12/21/2020 257145 ELISA DIMAS 90.00
12/21/2020 257146 STACY CERNY 200.00
12/21/2020 257147 STEPHANIE SMITH 300.00
12/21/2020 257148 VERONICA MEDINA 300.00
12/21/2020 257149 WIJAYA SULAEMAN 99.00
12/21/2020 257150 ZIKANG ZHOU 99.00
12/22/2020 257141 DEBORAH A ARNOLD 47.99
12/22/2020 257151 ACS SUPPORT 26.00
12/22/2020 257152 ADOBE INC. 10,578.96
12/22/2020 257153 AFFORDABLE AUTO SERVICE, RAHIB ELAWAR 49.95
12/22/2020 257154 AMERICAN FIDELITY ASSURANCE COMPANY (FSA) 976.25
12/22/2020 257155 AT&T 528.17
12/22/2020 257156 BALFOUR BEATTY INFRASTRUCTURE, INC 5,092,578.60
12/22/2020 257157 BRUCE S. HERWIG 400.00
12/22/2020 257158 CLIFTONLARSONALLEN LLP 5,000.00
12/22/2020 257159 DENTAL HEALTH SERVICES 312.10
12/22/2020 257160 EUCLID MANAGERS, INSURANCE SERVICES INC. 528.00
12/22/2020 257161 FedEx 94.05
12/22/2020 257162 FIELDMAN, ROLAPP & ASSOCIATES 4,575.21
12/22/2020 257163 INLAND DESERT SECURITY & COMMUNICATIONS, INC 610.75
12/22/2020 257164 INLAND WATER WORKS SUPPLY CO 3,620.93
12/22/2020 257165 KONICA MINOLTA 251.19
12/22/2020 257166 MULTIPLIER / MAVEN'S NOTEBOOK 1,000.00
12/22/2020 257167 SO CAL GAS 15.29
12/22/2020 257168 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY 11,689.06
12/22/2020 257169 SWRCB-DWOCP 80.00
12/22/2020 257170 TROY ALARM, INC. C/O AFA REDEMPTION CENTER 192.00
12/22/2020 257171 UNIFIRST CORPORATION 1,383.06
12/22/2020 257174 UNITED SITE SERVICES OF CALIFORNIA, INC 609.19
12/22/2020 257175 US BANCORP SERVICE CENTER 13,192.09
12/22/2020 257178 V.I.P. DOORS & GATES INC 405.00
12/22/2020 257179 VERIZON 1,243.20
12/22/2020 257180 JERRY DIAZ 1,260.00
12/22/2020 257181 JOSUE HERNANDEZ 20.00
12/22/2020 257182 JUAN REYES 150.00
12/22/2020 257183 ROBIN THOMPSON 150.00
12/22/2020 257184 ALICE SUAREZ 57.07
BANK DRAFTS
12/1/2020 DFT0004031 CALPERS/ MEDICAL 98,152.45
12/2/2020 DFT0004032 GLOBAL PAYMENTS 12,396.31
12/2/2020 DFT0004034 PayNearMe, Inc. 63.68
12/3/2020 DFT0004033 MERCHANT BANKCD 561.71
12/3/2020 DFT0004035 PayNearMe, Inc. 25.87
12/9/2020 DFT0004040 CALPERS/ DEFERRED COMPENSATION 23,501.82
12/9/2020 DFT0004045 STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT 2,678.62
12/9/2020 DFT0004049 PayNearMe, Inc. 179.10
12/10/2020 DFT0004041 CALPERS/ RETIREMENT 46,607.91
12/10/2020 DFT0004048 CALPERS/ RETIREMENT 287.18
12/10/2020 DFT0004050 PayNearMe, Inc. 45.77
12/10/2020 DFT0004051 FORTE, ACH DIRECT INC, ACH FEES 4,226.43
12/10/2020 DFT0004052 TRANSFIRST DISCOUNT 47.90
PAYMENT REGISTER
DECEMBER 1, 2020 - DECEMBER 31, 2020 Page 3 of 6
PAYMENT DATE NUMBER VENDOR NAME AMOUNT
12/11/2020 DFT0004039 CA SDI Tax 2,518.16
12/11/2020 DFT0004042 Federal Payroll Tax 36,572.89
12/11/2020 DFT0004043 Medicare 10,222.40
12/11/2020 DFT0004044 Social Security 978.60
12/11/2020 DFT0004046 State Payroll Tax 14,617.84
12/16/2020 DFT0004053 PayNearMe, Inc. 236.81
12/22/2020 DFT0004064 PayNearMe, Inc. 163.18
12/23/2020 DFT0004056 CA SDI Tax 1,721.36
12/23/2020 DFT0004057 CALPERS/ DEFERRED COMPENSATION 20,297.52
12/23/2020 DFT0004058 CALPERS/ RETIREMENT 45,837.45
12/23/2020 DFT0004059 Federal Payroll Tax 29,710.83
12/23/2020 DFT0004060 Medicare 8,023.95
12/23/2020 DFT0004061 Social Security 973.58
12/23/2020 DFT0004062 STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT 2,678.62
12/23/2020 DFT0004063 State Payroll Tax 11,837.90
12/30/2020 DFT0004065 PayNearMe, Inc. 133.33
12/31/2020 DFT0004066 PayNearMe, Inc. 19.90
ACH PAYMENTS
12/3/2020 10008297 ALLEN WILLIAMS 648.60
12/3/2020 10008298 AMERICAN RENTALS, INC 45.99
12/3/2020 10008299 APPLIED MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES & SOLUTIONS 1,459.35
12/3/2020 10008300 ASHOK K. DHINGRA, AKD CONSULTING 12,382.00
12/3/2020 10008301 BARRY'S SECURITY SERVICES, INC 4,682.19
12/3/2020 10008302 CAROL CALES 642.87
12/3/2020 10008303 CLARK PEST CONTROL 191.00
12/3/2020 10008304 DANIEL DAVIS 545.90
12/3/2020 10008305 DAVID HERNANDEZ 431.95
12/3/2020 10008306 ELISEO OCHOA 649.61
12/3/2020 10008307 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATES/ESA 1,530.00
12/3/2020 10008308 EXCEL LANDSCAPE, INC 13,692.00
12/3/2020 10008309 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES, INC. 24,556.23
12/3/2020 10008310 FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS 61.90
12/3/2020 10008311 GARY STURDIVAN 656.56
12/3/2020 10008312 GENESIS INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY, INC 1,063.65
12/3/2020 10008313 GORDON GRANT 568.10
12/3/2020 10008314 JACQUELINE AGUILAR 150.00
12/3/2020 10008315 MANAGED MOBILE, INC. 2,591.84
12/3/2020 10008316 MCCROMETER INC 6,274.75
12/3/2020 10008317 MCMASTER-CARR 52.05
12/3/2020 10008318 MICHAEL HENDERSON 641.44
12/3/2020 10008319 PLUMBERS DEPOT INC. 783.49
12/3/2020 10008320 REBECCA KASTEN 529.31
12/3/2020 10008321 REDLINE MOBILE FLEET SERVICE & REPAIR 1,914.32
12/3/2020 10008322 ROBERT MARTIN 750.00
12/3/2020 10008323 STAPLES BUSINESS ADVANTAGE 93.05
12/3/2020 10008324 SULZER ELECTRO-MECHANICIAL SERVICES (US) INC. 801.50
12/3/2020 10008325 UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT 178.30
12/3/2020 10008326 VULCAN MATERIALS CO/ CALMAT CO 2,072.90
12/3/2020 10008327 YVETTE SINGLETON 200.00
12/9/2020 10008328 AMERICAN RENTALS, INC 1,603.05
12/9/2020 10008329 ANTHESIS 12,127.51
12/9/2020 10008330 BACKFLOW PREVENTION DEVICE INSPECTIONS INC 3,005.85
PAYMENT REGISTER
DECEMBER 1, 2020 - DECEMBER 31, 2020 Page 4 of 6
PAYMENT DATE NUMBER VENDOR NAME AMOUNT
12/9/2020 10008331 BARRY'S SECURITY SERVICES, INC 5,543.86
12/9/2020 10008332 CINTAS CORPORATION (FIRST AID) 315.88
12/9/2020 10008333 CLARK PEST CONTROL 230.00
12/9/2020 10008334 CORELOGIC SOLUTIONS, LLC 360.50
12/9/2020 10008335 DALE BRENDT MARSDEN, dba TOMORROW'S TALENT, LLC 1,450.00
12/9/2020 10008336 DAMON RUSSELL 48.00
12/9/2020 10008337 DANGELO CO INC 129.30
12/9/2020 10008338 FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS 50.05
12/9/2020 10008339 HAAKER EQUIPMENT COMPANY & TOTAL CLEAN 1,465.34
12/9/2020 10008340 INFOSEND, INC 300.00
12/9/2020 10008341 KOFF & ASSOCIATES, INC 975.00
12/9/2020 10008342 LEGEND PUMP AND WELL 8,700.00
12/9/2020 10008343 LINCOLN NATIONAL LIFE INS CO. 819.63
12/9/2020 10008344 MOBILE OCCUPATIONAL SERVICES, INC 285.00
12/9/2020 10008345 NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION RENTALS 158.49
12/9/2020 10008346 PLUS 1 PERFORMANCE 1,496.52
12/9/2020 10008347 QUADIENT, INC 1,263.94
12/9/2020 10008348 SHRED-IT US JV LLC 136.24
12/9/2020 10008349 VERIZON WIRELESS 7,718.40
12/9/2020 10008351 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES, INC 127.18
12/9/2020 10008352 EVWD EMPLOYEES EVENTS ASSOC 417.42
12/9/2020 10008353 LINCOLN NATIONAL LIFE INS CO. 600.70
12/16/2020 10008354 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES, INC 3,715.27
12/16/2020 10008356 ANTHONY POOL SERVICE, JAMES ANTHONY LOGSDON 225.00
12/16/2020 10008357 ARCADIS U.S., INC 9,548.00
12/16/2020 10008358 BARRY'S SECURITY SERVICES, INC 4,670.58
12/16/2020 10008359 BURGESS MOVING & STORAGE 1,239.15
12/16/2020 10008360 CINTAS CORPORATION (FIRST AID) 29.63
12/16/2020 10008361 CLA-VAL CO 1,003.37
12/16/2020 10008362 CLINICAL LAB OF S B 5,999.00
12/16/2020 10008363 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES, INC. 57,949.41
12/16/2020 10008364 FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS 1,170.88
12/16/2020 10008365 JC LAW FIRM 9,260.00
12/16/2020 10008366 JESUS FABIAN VALENZUELA 70.00
12/16/2020 10008367 JOSE MILLAN 3,050.00
12/16/2020 10008368 MANAGED MOBILE, INC. 907.15
12/16/2020 10008369 MERLIN JOHNSON CONSTRUCTION 17,468.27
12/16/2020 10008370 MIKE J. ROQUET CONSTRUCTION INC 1,600.00
12/16/2020 10008371 MINUTEMAN PRESS OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 624.10
12/16/2020 10008372 MUSICK, PEELER & GARRETT LLP 1,870.00
12/16/2020 10008373 ORION SYSTEMS INTEGRATORS LLC 2,000.00
12/16/2020 10008374 POWERSTRIDE BATTERY CO. 340.92
12/16/2020 10008375 RAYMOND ROYBAL 105.00
12/16/2020 10008376 RESOLUTE 4,200.00
12/16/2020 10008377 S & J PLUMBING, INC. 365.00
12/16/2020 10008378 SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT 400,000.00
12/16/2020 10008379 STAPLES BUSINESS ADVANTAGE 531.92
12/16/2020 10008380 STEPHANIE MICHELE GUIDA 3,975.00
12/16/2020 10008381 SULZER ELECTRO-MECHANICIAL SERVICES (US) INC. 800.00
12/16/2020 10008382 TESCO CONTROLS, INC. 362.50
12/16/2020 10008383 VULCAN MATERIALS CO/ CALMAT CO 3,404.76
12/16/2020 10008384 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY 821.24
12/16/2020 10008385 ZENON ENVIRONMENTAL CORP. 181,268.89
PAYMENT REGISTER
DECEMBER 1, 2020 - DECEMBER 31, 2020 Page 5 of 6
PAYMENT DATE NUMBER VENDOR NAME AMOUNT
12/22/2020 10008386 ACI PAYMENTS INC. 52.30
12/22/2020 10008387 ADCOMP SYSTEMS 319.29
12/22/2020 10008388 ADVANTAGE FLEET WASH, INC 2,800.00
12/22/2020 10008390 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES, INC 304.68
12/22/2020 10008391 ASHOK K. DHINGRA, AKD CONSULTING 10,117.00
12/22/2020 10008392 B&A BLAIS & ASSOCIATES INC 3,500.00
12/22/2020 10008393 BARRY'S SECURITY SERVICES, INC 4,641.57
12/22/2020 10008394 BOOT BARN, INC 1,371.04
12/22/2020 10008395 CALIFORNIA TOOL & WELDING SUPPLY 3,590.23
12/22/2020 10008396 CLARK PEST CONTROL 191.00
12/22/2020 10008397 CLEARFLY COMMUNATIONS 1,692.22
12/22/2020 10008398 CONSUMERS PIPE & SUPPLY COMPANY 3,154.12
12/22/2020 10008399 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATES/ESA 6,715.00
12/22/2020 10008400 EVWD EMPLOYEES EVENTS ASSOC 417.42
12/22/2020 10008401 GOLDEN STATE LABOR COMPLIANCE, LLC 4,750.00
12/22/2020 10008402 HAAKER EQUIPMENT COMPANY & TOTAL CLEAN 112.06
12/22/2020 10008403 INFOSEND, INC 13,147.34
12/22/2020 10008404 INNOVYZE, INC 8,347.40
12/22/2020 10008405 KRIEGER & STEWART, INCORPORATED 9,016.35
12/22/2020 10008406 LANDS END INC 791.04
12/22/2020 10008407 MANAGED MOBILE, INC. 2,655.20
12/22/2020 10008408 MINUTEMAN PRESS OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 1,884.75
12/22/2020 10008409 PLUMBERS DEPOT INC. 783.49
12/22/2020 10008410 PLUS 1 PERFORMANCE 246.84
12/22/2020 10008411 POWERSTRIDE BATTERY CO. 332.10
12/22/2020 10008412 REDLINE MOBILE FLEET SERVICE & REPAIR 7,991.63
12/22/2020 10008414 SEASONS AND REASONS, LLC 3,412.50
12/22/2020 10008415 STAPLES BUSINESS ADVANTAGE 307.03
12/22/2020 10008416 STUBBIES PROMOTIONS INC 3,029.51
12/22/2020 10008417 THE GRANT FARM (MOMENTUM) 705.85
12/22/2020 10008418 TYLER TECHNOLOGIES, INC 440.00
12/22/2020 10008419 VULCAN MATERIALS CO/ CALMAT CO 1,417.44
12/22/2020 10008420 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY 60.93
TOTAL 17,572,787.91
PAYMENT REGISTER
DECEMBER 1, 2020 - DECEMBER 31, 2020 Page 6 of 6
B O AR D AG E N DA S TAF F R E P O RT
Agend a Item #2.b .
Meeting Date: January 27, 2021
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 Dec ember 31, 2020
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 ,
Dec ember 31, 2020.
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 D istrict’s cash and investments, restricted and unrestricted, as of
Dec ember 31, 2020. Attachment A presents the investment securities purchased and retired during the quarter O ctober to
D ecember 2020. 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 balance held in the Local Agency Investment F und at the b eginning o f the quarter was $6,027,193. Interest earned
d uring the previous quarter of $18,417 was p os ted to the ac co unt in O c tob er. T here were no in trans fers out during the
q uarter res ulting in a b alanc e o f $6,045,610, at the end of the quarter.
LAIF earnings for the q uarter ended December 31, 2020 were $9,558, c alculated at an ap po rtio nment rate o f 0.63%;
d own from 0.84% whic h had been in effect for the p revio us q uarter. T he earnings were po s ted to the Distric t’s
ac co unt o n January 15, 2021.
C itizen’s Business Bank (C B B) Wealth Management
T he total (bo ok) value of the as sets held with C BB inc reased $12,475 to $5,882,189 during the quarter ended
Dec ember 31, 2020. T he balanc e in this acco unt is held b oth in a money market acco unt ($1,408,216) and in a
$4,473,973 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 $16,436 and funds held in money market
ac co unts earned $40.
Investment manager fees p aid during the q uarter were $2,206. Earnings were decreas ed by a $1,795 amortizatio n p aid
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
o n the ac quis itio n of c ertain bo nds .
T here were no Dis tric t trans fers to or from this investment acco unt during the q uarter.
T he following sched ule s ummarizes the ac tivity fo r Unres tric ted Investments d uring the Q uarter ended Decemb er 31,
2020:
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 o f Decemb er 31, 2020, are us ed to rec eive Distric t dep os its , fro m whic h the Trus tee (Union Bank)
p ays Dis trict 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 Dec emb er 31, 2020:
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 Report for Qtr Ended Dec 31 2020 Backup Material
Attachment A - C BB Investment Activity Rpt Qtr Ended Dec
31 2 020 Backup Material
EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
INVESTMENT REPORT
QUARTER ENDED
December 31, 2020
Funds Purchase Maturity Interest Face Book Market Source of
Managed By Date Date Rate Value Value Value Valuation
Funds Held by EVWD
Cashiers change fund District N/A N/A N/A 750.00 750.00 750.00 N/A
Petty Cash / Kiosk Cash District N/A N/A N/A 4,500.00 4,500.00 4,500.00 N/A
Checking account Citizens Business Bank District N/A N/A N/A 14,598,153.97 14,598,153.97 14,598,153.97 N/A
Flexible Spending Account Citizens Business Bank District N/A N/A N/A 20,000.00 20,000.00 20,000.00 N/A
Funds Held by EVWD Under Management of an Outside Party
Local Agency Investment Fund - Undesignated State of California N/A N/A 0.630% 5,282,362.00 5,282,362.00 5,282,362.00 LAIF
Local Agency Investment Fund - Designated for Debt Service State of California N/A N/A 0.630% 763,248.00 763,248.00 763,248.00 LAIF
Citizens Business Bank
US Treasury / Agency Bonds CBB Wealth Mgt 4,361,000.00 4,473,973.29 4,510,249.58 Interactive Data
CBB Money Market Fund CBB Money Market Fund CBB Wealth Mgt N/A N/A 0.026% 1,408,215.86 1,408,215.86 1,408,215.86 N/A
Union Bank (2020A Refunding Revenue Bond Trustee)
Revenue Fund BlackrockT-Fund Inst Shares Union Bank N/A N/A N/A - - - Union Bank
Interest Account BlackrockT-Fund Inst Shares Union Bank N/A N/A 1.240% - - - Union Bank
Union Bank (2020B Revenue Bond Trustee)
Revenue Fund BlackrockT-Fund Inst Shares Union Bank N/A N/A N/A - - - Union Bank
Interest Account BlackrockT-Fund Inst Shares Union Bank N/A N/A 1.240% - - - Union Bank
Total Cash and Investments 26,438,229.83 26,551,203.12 26,587,479.41
SUMMARY Book Value Market Value %
Cash 14,623,403.97 14,623,403.97 55.00%
LAIF 6,045,610.00 6,045,610.00 22.74%
Treasury/Agency Securities 4,473,973.29 4,510,249.58 16.96%
Money Market Treasury Funds 1,408,215.86 1,408,215.86 5.30%
Total Cash and Investments 26,551,203.12 26,587,479.41 100.00%
Less: Funds designated for Bond debt service (763,248.00) (763,248.00) -2.87%
Less: Restricted Capacity Fees (6,583,103.06) (6,583,103.06) -24.76%
Less: Customer / Construction Deposits (1,490,425.53) (1,490,425.53) -5.61%
Less: Funds designated for rate stabilization (268,447.00) (268,447.00) -1.01%
Total Unrestricted / Undesignated Cash and Investments 17,445,979.53 17,482,255.82 65.75%
- -
Date
See Attached
I certify that this report accurately reflects all pooled investments and is in compliance with California Government Code Sec. 53646 as amended 1/1/96. This report is also in conformity with the investment policy of East Valley
Water District. As Treasurer of East Valley Water District, I hereby certify that sufficient investment liquidity and anticipated revenue are available to meet the next six month's estimated expenditures.
Signature
January 21, 2021
EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
Investment Activity
Quarter Ended December 31, 2020
Market
Purch Units / Maturity Amort Cost Adjusted Cost Matured / Adjusted Cost Value
Date Issuer CUSIP Yield Face Value Date 10/1/2020 Adjustment 10/1/2020 Purchases Called 12/31/2020 12/31/2020 Water Sewer
08/25/16 Fannie Mae 3136G3Y33 1.400% 300,000 08/25/21 300,000.00 300,000.00 300,000.00 302,532.00 302,532.00 -
11/04/16 US Treasury Note 912828T67 1.250% 500,000 10/31/21 499,765.63 499,765.63 499,765.63 504,650.00 504,650.00 -
12/09/16 Federal Home Loan 313371U79 3.125% 200,000 12/11/20 201,400.33 (1,400.33) 200,000.00 200,000.00 - - - -
12/09/16 Tenn Valley Authority 880591EL2 3.875% 111,000 02/15/21 113,247.18 (2,276.00) 110,971.18 110,971.18 111,475.08 111,475.08
05/31/17 US Treasury Note 912828XR6 1.750% 300,000 05/31/22 299,765.63 299,765.63 299,765.63 306,903.00 306,903.00 -
01/02/18 US Treasury Note 912828N89 1.375% 500,000 01/31/21 496,517.25 496,517.25 496,517.25 500,455.00 500,455.00 -
05/31/18 FHLB 3130AEBM1 2.750% 100,000 05/10/21 99,892.00 99,892.00 99,892.00 103,782.00 103,782.00 -
12/14/18 Federal Farm Credit Bank 3133EJ2R9 2.750% 100,000 12/14/20 99,862.00 99,862.00 99,862.00 - - - -
12/16/19 Freddie Mac 3130ADMJ8 2.375% 100,000 08/26/22 100,361.98 100,361.98 100,361.98 100,215.00 100,215.00
01/06/20 Federal Home Loan Bank 3130AEWA4 2.625% 150,000 10/01/20 150,732.73 (732.73) 150,000.00 150,000.00 - - - -
01/07/20 US Treasury Note 912828C57 2.250% 300,000 03/31/21 300,988.94 300,988.94 300,988.94 301,503.00 301,503.00 -
01/21/20 Tenn Valley Authority 880591ER9 2.875% 200,000 09/15/24 317,001.05 317,001.05 317,001.05 329,418.00 329,418.00 -
04/23/20 Fannie Mae 3135G03Q4 1.100% 150,000 04/23/25 150,000.00 150,000.00 150,000.00 - - -
05/28/20 Federal Farm Credit Bank 3133ELZY3 0.640% 200,000 05/20/24 199,800.00 199,800.00 199,800.00 - - - -
05/29/20 US Treasury Note 912828ZP8 0.125% 300,000 05/15/23 299,203.13 299,203.13 299,203.13 299,919.00 299,919.00 -
06/17/20 Federal Farm Credit Bank 3133ELH56 0.270% 200,000 06/09/22 199,750.00 199,750.00 199,750.00 199,926.00 199,926.00 -
06/29/20 Federal Farm Credit Bank 3133ELN75 0.230% 300,000 06/23/21 299,850.00 299,850.00 299,850.00 299,961.00 299,961.00 -
07/21/20 Freddie Mac 3134GWBV7 0.800% 200,000 07/21/25 200,000.00 200,000.00 200,000.00 - - - -
07/29/20 Freddie Mac 3134GWDY9 0.500% 200,000 01/29/24 200,000.00 200,000.00 200,000.00 200,006.00 200,006.00 -
07/30/20 Federal Home Loan Bank 3130AJUN7 0.550% 250,000 07/30/24 249,937.50 249,937.50 249,937.50 249,977.50 249,977.50 -
07/30/20 Freddie Mac 3134GWCZ7 0.300% 100,000 10/28/22 99,985.00 99,985.00 99,985.00 100,026.00 100,026.00 -
07/31/20 Fannie Mae 3136G4D83 0.510% 100,000 07/29/24 99,984.00 99,984.00 99,984.00 99,628.00 99,628.00 -
08/06/20 Freddie Mac 3134GWMY9 0.625% 100,000 08/19/25 100,000.00 100,000.00 100,000.00 99,843.00 99,843.00 -
09/01/20 Freddie Mac 3134GWA48 0.400% 200,000 12/01/23 200,000.00 200,000.00 200,000.00 199,996.00 199,996.00 -
09/28/20 Freddie Mac 3134GWTL0 0.300% 200,000 09/25/23 200,000.00 200,000.00 200,000.00 200,034.00 200,034.00 -
5,361,000.00 5,478,044.35 (4,409.06) 5,473,635.29 - 999,662.00 4,473,973.29 4,510,249.58 4,298,559.50 211,690.08
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: January 27, 2021
P ublic Hearing
To: G o verning Board Memb ers
F rom: Legal C ouns el
Subject: C ons id er Approval o f R esolution 2021.04 - a R esolutio n o f Nec essity Autho rizing Eminent Domain
P roc eed ings to Ac q uire P roperty; p ublic hearing.
R E C O MME N D AT IO N:
It is rec o mmend ed that the Bo ard o f Direc to rs review and approve the R es olutio n o f Nec essity fo r the
ac q uis ition of No rth F o rk Water C o mp any s hares and adopt the find ings therein inc luding:
1. T hat the pub lic interes t req uires the pro ject.
2. T hat the project was planned in a manner mo s t c o mp atible with the greatest pub lic go o d and the least
private injury.
3. T hat the property sought is nec es s ary for the project.
B AC KGR O UN D / AN ALYS IS :
S everal months ago the Bo ard o f Direc tors autho rized the initiation of eminent domain p ro ceedings to ac q uire
the remaining p rivately owned s hares of No rth F o rk Water C o mp any. T he number and owners hip o f the s hares
are more thoroughly desc rib ed in Exhib it A to the R es olutio n o f Necessity s ubmitted herewith.
T he No rth F o rk Water C o mp any was estab lished in 1885 to deliver surface water from the S anta Ana R iver and
o ther s o urc es fo r d elivery to its s hareholders. T he water d elivery s ys tem is antiq uated and ineffic ient res ulting in
s ignificant was te of water in c o ntraventio n o f state water c o ns ervatio n mandates. East Valley Water Dis tric t
(Dis tric t) c urrently owns more than 99% o f the s hares o f the c orporatio n. T he District b elieves that it is in the
p ublic interes t to acquire the remaining shares in the c o rp o ration and c o ns olidate the water into the Dis tric t’s
municipal water s ys tem fo r servic e to the p ub lic.
Brian J. Brad y and As s o ciates was retained to perform an appraisal of the value of the No rth F o rk shares . His
ap p rais al was first issued on January 18, 2018 and mos t rec ently upd ated o n April 27, 2020. T he ap p rais ed value
is $569.00 p er share.
O n Augus t 11, 2020, offers of just compens atio n were s ent to the remaining s hareho ld ers o ffering to p urc has e
the s hares for the apprais ed value. Upon rec eip t of the letters, two o f the s hareho lders agreed to sell their shares .
T he remaining s hareholders have not res p o nd ed . Webb and As s oc iates were retained to perfo rm a review of the
p ro ject for complianc e with the C alifo rnia Enviro nmental Q uality Ac t and it was d etermined that the p ro jec t is
categoric ally exemp t. A Notice o f Exemptio n was is s ued, posted , and bec ame final o n O c to b er 21, 2020.
R ecommended b y:
Jean C ihigoyenetc he
Legal C ounsel
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
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
b ) Enhanc e P lanning Efforts that R es p o nd to F uture Demands
R E VIE W B Y O T HE R S :
T his agenda item has been reviewed by legal counsel.
F IS C AL IMPAC T
C osts as s o ciated with this agenda item have been included in the F Y 20/21 b ud get.
ATTACH M E N TS:
Description Type
Resolution 2021.04 Resolutio n Letter
Exhibit A Exhibit
Page 1 of 6
RESOLUTION 2021.04
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
OF THE EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT, SAN BERNARDINO
COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBING A CERTAIN PROJECT;
MAKING STATEMENT OF THE PUBLIC USE FOR WHICH CERTAIN
PROPERTIES ARE TO BE TAKEN AND REFERENCE TO STATUTORY
AUTHORITY TO ACQUIRE SAID PROPERTIES BY EMINENT
DOMAIN; DECLARING FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS OF
PUBLIC INTEREST AND NECESSITY FOR SAID PROPERTIES;
AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDINGS
TO BE COMMENCED IN SUPERIOR COURT TO ACQUIRE SAID
PROPERTIES INCLUDING APPLICATION FOR POSSESSION OF SAID
PROPERTIES PRIOR TO JUDGMENT; AND MAKING OTHER
DETERMINATIONS
WHEREAS, the East Valley Water District (hereinafter the “District”), is a County
Water District organized and existing pursuant to the laws of the State of California and
authorized by California Water Code § 31040, et seq, to exercise the power of eminent domain to
acquire certain properties for public purposes; and
WHEREAS, the District is authorized by California Water Code § 31051 to acquire by
any means stock of any mutual water company for the purpose of furnishing a supply of water
for public, municipal, or governmental purposes; and
WHEREAS, the District currently owns over 99% of all issued shares in the North Fork
Water Company (“NFWC”), a private mutual water company created in 1885 that secures
surface water from the Santa Ana River and other available sources for delivery to its
shareholders, however the water delivery system is antiquated and results in the significant waste
of water; and
WHEREAS, the District’s Board of Directors has been investigating the acquisition of
the remaining issued shares of NFWC for the public purpose of consolidating and improving the
Page 2 of 6
efficiency and reliability of water service within the District’s service area and to consolidate
NFWC water into the District’s municipal water supply (“Project”). A Notice of Exemption
from CEQA pursuant to Section 15301 was posted with the County Clerk on September 17,
2020; and
WHEREAS, to accomplish the Project, this Board of Directors believes that it is
necessary to acquire by eminent domain certain issued shares in NFWC, hereinafter collectively
referred to “Subject Property;” and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 1245.235 of the Code of Civil Procedure, this Board of
Directors has fixed a time and place for public hearing on the matters referred to in Section
1240.030 of the Code of Civil Procedure; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors has given each person who owns or claims a right
in the Subject Property proposed to be acquired by eminent domain and whose name and address
appears on the list of shareholders notice and a reasonable opportunity to be heard in the time,
form and manner required by Section 1245.235 of the Code of Civil Procedure; and
WHEREAS, at the public hearing, this Board of Directors did hear and consider all
testimony, written and oral, to the matters referred to in Section 1240.030 of the Code of Civil
Procedure:
NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of Directors of District does hereby RESOLVE,
DETERMINE AND ORDER as follows:
Section 1. That the above recitals are true and correct.
Section 2. That the Subject Property to be taken by eminent domain is for a public
use.
Page 3 of 6
Section 3. That the District is authorized and empowered to commence eminent
domain proceedings to acquire the Subject Property, pursuant to Sections
31040 and 31051 of the Water Code; and Eminent domain law, being Title
7, Part III of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Section 4. That a description of and the specific share identification numbers of the
Subject Property to be taken by eminent domain is set forth in Exhibit
“A”, attached hereto and made a part of hereof.
Section 5. That this Board of Directors does find, determine and declare as follows:
(a) That, to the extent acquisition of the Subject Property results in a remnant
or remnants, such remnant(s) shall be acquired by eminent domain herein,
pursuant to Section 1240.410 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(b) That, to the extent the Subject Property or interest herein are already
appropriated to a public use, the use proposed herein will not unreasonably
interfere with or impair the continuance of the public use as they presently
exist or may be expected to exist in the future, pursuant to Section
1240.510 of the Code of Civil Procedure; and
(c) That, to the extent the Subject Property or interest therein is already
appropriated to a public use, the use proposed herein is a more necessary
public use than the use to which the Subject Property is presently
appropriated, pursuant to Section 1240.610 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, or, in the alternative, the use proposed herein is a compatible
public use which will not unreasonably interfere with the continuance of
Page 4 of 6
the existing public use, pursuant to Section 1240.630(a) of the Code of
Civil Procedure.
Section 6. The Board of Directors further finds, determines and declares as follows:
(a) That the public interest and necessity require the Project;
(b) That the Project is planned or located in the manner that will be most
compatible with the greatest good and the least private injury;
(c) That the Subject Property sought to be acquired is necessary for said
Project; and
(d) That a written offer of just compensation has been made to the owners of
record of the Subject Property in the time, form and manner required by
Section 7267.2 of the Government Code.
Section 7. That the District shall retain counsel who is hereby authorized and
directed to commence an action in the Superior Court of the State of
California, for the County of San Bernardino, in the name and on behalf of
the District, against those persons who appear on record or who are known
to have a claim or interest in the Subject Property described in Exhibit “A”
for the purpose of acquiring the Subject Property by eminent domain for
the public use described herein and to make application for possession of
the Subject Property prior to judgment.
Section 8. That the offices of the District are hereby authorized and directed to
withdraw necessary sums to deposit with the Superior Court as the
probable amount of compensation that will be awarded in the eminent
Page 5 of 6
domain proceedings to acquire the Subject Property described in Exhibit
“A”.
Section 9. That the officers of the District are hereby authorized and directed to take
any appropriate action consistent with the purposes of this Resolution.
ADOPTED this 27th day of January, 2021.
__________________________________________
David E. Smith
Chairman East Valley Water District
ATTEST:
______________________________________
John Mura
Secretary of the East Valley Water District
Page 6 of 6
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
)
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO )
I, John Mura, Secretary of the East Valley Water District, DO HEREBY
CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution being No. 2021.04, was adopted at a regular
meeting on January 27, 2021, of said District by the following vote:
AYES:
NOYES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
___________________________________
Secretary, John Mura
EXHIBIT A
OWNER NUMBER OF SHARES STOCK CERTIFICATE NUMBER
Brucie Cagle 4 1373
Richard B. Christianson 3 1148
& Sandra L. Christianson
Michael C. Raley 5 1414
& Patricia M. Raley
Santiago Avina 9 1404
Nigel Smith 3 1378
B O AR D AGE N D A S TAF F R E P ORT
Agenda Item #4.
Meeting Date: January 27, 2021
Dis c ussion Item
To: G o verning Board Memb ers
F rom: G eneral Manager/C EO
Subject: C ons id er Adoptio n of R es o lution 2021.05 - C ertifying Ad d endum No . 2 to the F inal Environmental
Imp act R ep o rt fo r the S terling Natural R es o urc e C enter
R E C O MME N D AT IO N:
S taff recommends that the Bo ard o f Directo rs ad o p t R esolution 2021.05, certifying Ad d end um No. 2 to the
F inal Environmental Impact R ep o rt (EIR ) fo r the S terling Natural R esource C enter, inc luding the find ings
therein.
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 agency. T he certified 2016 E I R is attac hed hereto as Exhibit “A” to this d o cument. S inc e the
certification of the 2016 EI R , EVW D has taken over as lead agenc y fo r the S NR C P roject. In July 2019, as
lead agency, EVW D ad o p ted Ad d endum No . 1 to the 2016 EI R , attached hereto as Exhibit “B”, and
R es o lutio n 2019.11. Ad d end um No . 1 evaluated s p ec ified operatio nal c hanges to the S NR C facility that d id no t
create new o r inc reas ed enviro nmental imp acts b eyond tho s e analyzed and mitigated in the EI R . At this time, a
s econd mo d ific ation, Ad d endum No . 2, is p ro p o s ed to the P ro jec t, attac hed hereto as “Exhib it C ”. Addend um
No . 2 wo uld allo w: (1) the rec harge of S NR C -treated water into the groundwater b asin at two additio nal
recharge b asin loc ations in the C ity o f Highland ; and (2) the extens ion of the 2016 EI R -certified treated water
conveyance p ip eline sys tem to the two new rec harge bas ins.
E VW D has prepared Addend um No . 2 purs uant to C EQ A G uid elines S ectio n 15164 to evaluate the p o tential
fo r either o f the p roposed modificatio ns to res ult in new s ignificant imp acts not p reviously id entified in the 2016
E I R . As d es cribed in detail in Addend um No . 2, imp acts to the enviro nment as a result of the two newly-
p ro p o s ed modificatio ns to the S N R C are cons is tent with and would no t c reate s ubs tantial new o r increas ed
imp acts b eyond tho s e which were evaluated in the 2016 E I R . T he prop o s ed P ro ject mo d ificatio ns des c ribed in
Ad d endum No. 2 p ropose no sub s tantial c hanges req uiring majo r revis io ns o f the previous EI R d ue to the
invo lvement o f new signific ant environmental effec ts . F urther, the propo s ed mo d ific ations d esc rib ed in
Ad d endum No. 2 do not create a s ubs tantial inc reas e in the severity of p revious ly id entified s ignificant effects .
No new info rmation o f sub s tantial importance indic ates the S NR C P ro jec t would have one or mo re s ignificant
effects not d isc ussed in the p revio us EI R , no r are signific ant effec ts previo us ly examined s ub stantially more
s evere than des c ribed in the previo us E I R . No new mitigation was id entified in Ad d endum No. 2 that wo uld
red uc e imp acts to the environment evaluated in the 2016 E I R . No new mitigatio n would be required as a res ult of
imp lementing the S NR C P rojec t modificatio ns . P urs uant to C EQ A G uid elines S ectio ns 15162 and 15164 and
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
imp lementing the S NR C P rojec t modificatio ns . P urs uant to C EQ A G uid elines S ectio ns 15162 and 15164 and
the findings d es cribed in Ad d end um No. 2, Ad d end um No. 2 is the ap propriate C EQ A doc ument. No
s ubsequent o r sup p lemental EI R is 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 approved in the F Y 2020-21 C ap ital Imp ro vement P rogram in the amount o f $81,000,000.
ATTACH M E N TS:
Description Type
Resolution 2021.05 Resolutio n Letter
Exhibit "C" Addendum No. 2 to E IR Exhibit
Resolution 2019.11 Resolutio n Letter
Exhibit "B" Addendum No. 1 to E IR Exhibit
Exhibit "A" F IN AL Certified SNRC E IR Exhibit
Draft E IR S N R C Backup Material
East Valley Water District
Resolution 2021.05
Page 1 of 4
RESOLUTION 2021.05
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT ADOPTING ADDENDUM NO. 2
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 March 23, 2016, in its role as a responsible agency, the EVWD Board of
Directors also approved and certified the EIR for the SNRC; 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, mitigation, monitoring, and reporting responsibilities for the
SNRC Project as lead agency; and
WHEREAS, on July 24 2019, EVWD’s Board of Directors voted to approve and adopt an
Addendum (Addendum No. 1) to the 2016 EIR that authorized specific modifications to the SNRC
Project, including making findings pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21166 and CEQA
East Valley Water District
Resolution 2021.05
Page 2 of 4
Guidelines sections 15162-15164 that Addendum No. 1 satisfied all the requirements of CEQA
and was appropriate to serve as the required environmental documentation for the SNRC Project
modifications; and
WHEREAS, EVWD now proposes to further modify the SNRC Project to authorize: (1)
the recharge of SNRC-treated water into the groundwater basin at two additional recharge
locations, Weaver Basins and Plunge Creek Basins, both in the City of Highland; and (2) the
extension of the 2016 EIR-certified treated water conveyance pipeline system to the two new
recharge basins; 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 newly 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 new 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 newly proposed modifications to the SNRC Project, and
based on ESA’s evaluation of the environmental impact of said modifications, ESA prepared
Addendum No. 2 pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164; and
WHEREAS, EVWD’s Board of Directors has reviewed and considered the information,
findings and conclusions contained in Addendum No. 2 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. Addendum No. 2 was presented to the East Valley Water District Board of
Directors on January 27, 2021 and considered by the Board of Directors at its regularly scheduled
meeting of January 27, 2021, and had been independently reviewed and considered by the
members of the Board of Directors prior to that meeting.
2. Addendum No. 2 was prepared for the newly proposed 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.
East Valley Water District
Resolution 2021.05
Page 3 of 4
3. Based upon the evidence submitted and as demonstrated by the analysis included
in Addendum No. 2, 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 newly 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 significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant
effects; and
b) The newly 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 newly proposed modifications to the SNRC Project, certified
EIR, Addendum No. 1, and Addendum No. 2 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 Addendum No. 1 and Addendum No. 2, 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 Addendum No. 2 for the newly
proposed modifications to the SNRC Project.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 27th day of January, 2021.
Ayes:
Noes:
_______________________________
David E. Smith
Board Chairman
East Valley Water District
Resolution 2021.05
Page 4 of 4
January 27, 2021
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of Resolution
2021.1 adopted by the Board of Directors of East Valley Water District at its Regular Meeting held
January 27, 2021.
ATTEST:
___________________________________
John Mura
Secretary, Board of Directors
Exhibit "C"
| ESA
Sterling Natural Resource Center i ESA / 150005.02
Addendum No. 2 the 2016 Final EIR January 2021
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Addendum No. 2 to the Final Environmental
Impact Report: SCH#: 2015101058
Page
INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 1
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS ................................................................ 2
Recharge Basins .............................................................................................................. 2
Treated Water Conveyance Pipeline ............................................................................... 5
CEQA GUIDELINES FOR THE PREPARATION OF AN ADDENDUM .................................. 6
CEQA CONSISTENCY EVALUATION ..................................................................................... 7
NO POTENTIAL FOR NEW IMPACTS TO ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES...................... 8
POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES ........................................... 10
Aesthetics ....................................................................................................................... 10
Agricultural and Forestry Resources .............................................................................. 12
Biological Resources ...................................................................................................... 14
Cultural Resources ......................................................................................................... 18
Hydrology and Water Quality ......................................................................................... 20
Land Use and Planning .................................................................................................. 23
Noise ............................................................................................................................... 25
Transportation and Traffic .............................................................................................. 27
SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................. 29
Appendices
A. Updated General Biological and Spring Botanical Surveys for Greenspot Partners
Site West
B. 2017 Updated Spring Botanical Survey for Greenspot Partners TT 17604
C. Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project,
±60 Acres in the City of Highland, San Bernardino County, California
Addendum No 2 to the Final Environmental Impact Report: SCH#: 2015101058
Sterling Natural Resource Center ii ESA / 150005.02
Addendum No. 2 the 2016 Final EIR January 2021
List of Figures
1 Project Features ............................................................................................................ 3
2 Weaver Basins Layout .................................................................................................. 4
List of Tables
1 Aesthetics Impacts and Mitigation Summary .............................................................. 10
2 Agricultural and Forestry Resources Impacts and Mitigation Summary..................... 12
3 Biological Resources Impacts and Mitigation Summary ............................................. 14
4 Cultural Impacts and Mitigation Summary .................................................................. 18
5 Hydrology and Water Quality Impacts and Mitigation Summary ................................ 20
6 Land Use and Planning Impacts and Mitigation Summary ......................................... 23
7 Noise Impacts and Mitigation Summary ..................................................................... 25
8 Traffic and Transportation Impacts and Mitigation Summary ..................................... 27
Sterling Natural Resource Center 1 ESA / 150005.02
Addendum No. 2 the 2016 Final EIR January 2021
STERLING NATURAL RESOURCE CENTER
Addendum No. 2 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 or Project) 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. 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.
In July 2019, following the 2016 certification of the EIR and the 2018 transfer of lead agency
responsibility for the SNRC to EVWD, EVWD adopted an addendum to the 2016 EIR
(Addendum No. 1). Addendum No. 1 modified the SNRC facility in a specified manner that did
not create new or increased environmental impacts beyond those analyzed and mitigated in the
EIR. At this time, EVWD proposes a second Project modification (Addendum No. 2) to allow: 1)
the recharge of SNRC-treated water into the groundwater basin at two additional recharge basin
locations in the City of Highland; and 2) the extension of the 2016 EIR-certified treated water
conveyance pipeline system to the two new recharge basins. As a result of these proposed
modifications, EVWD has prepared this Addendum No. 2 pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section
15164, evaluating the potential for either of the proposed modifications to result in new
significant impacts not previously identified in the 2016 EIR.
Addendum No 2 to the Final Environmental Impact Report: SCH#: 2015101058
Sterling Natural Resource Center 2 ESA / 150005.02
Addendum No. 2 the 2016 Final EIR January 2021
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS
Recharge Basins
Weaver Basins
The Weaver Basins property is located east of the intersection of Club View Drive and Greenspot
Road, on a partially disturbed lot within the City of Highland. To the immediate west of the
property is vacant land, formerly proposed for the now-withdrawn Heatherglen Planned
Development; residential is located to the west and north; open space to the east; and the Santa
Ana River is located to the south (Figure 1).
The recharge basins would be excavated on site, with earthen berms between recharge units.
Partially buried concrete weirs and energy dissipation/flow control structures would be
constructed on site, comprising a permanent footprint of up to 30-feet x 30-feet. A pipeline
(manifold) would be installed with multiple valves at a predetermined spacing that can be opened
or closed at different times based on the incoming flow. The manifolds would convey flows into
the recharge basins. The facility would include flow control valves, metering, a storage tank,
booster pump station, telemetry, basin emergency overflow culvert and an outlet structure for
emergency releases to Weaver Creek (Figure 2). The Weaver Basins site could also include
appurtenant facilities such as a pumping plant, surge tank and forebay tank for operational
flexibility, as necessary.
Construction methods will include excavation on site with dozers and graders to contour the
basins appropriately. The design of the basins would maintain a balance of cut and fill to
minimize soil hauling from the site. Excavated soil would be evenly spread on site or included in
basin border berms. A maximum of 5,000 cubic yards of soil may be hauled off site. When
completed, the Weaver Basins would include approximately 6 recharge basins with a maximum
storage volume of approximately 200 acre-feet.
The design of the recharge basins includes frontage landscaping to integrate the new land use into
the community consistent with the existing visual character of the area, in a manner compatible
with the surrounding uses. The Weaver Basins site currently has approximately 114 heritage trees
scattered throughout (L&L 2015). Any heritage tree removed as part of the recharge basin site
preparation is required to be replaced at a 2:1 ratio by the City of Highlands Municipal Code
Section 16.64.040.
Plunge Creek Quarry Basins
The Plunge Creek Quarry Basins property is located in the City of Highland south of Greenspot
Road, between SR-210 and Orange Street, on land currently being used as a quarry. The property
is located adjacent to the southern bank of Plunge Creek within the Upper Santa Ana River Wash
Habitat Conservation Plan area (see Figure 1). The property is approved to continue actively
mining gravel materials through 2022. Once the mining is completed, the quarry will be
converted by the San Bernardino Valley Water Conservation District into recharge basins. When
completed, the Plunge Creek Quarry Basins site would include three basins with a maximum
storage volume of approximately 1,978 acre-feet.
ColeAve
StreaterAve
CloverhillDr
E 9th St We
a
v
e
r
S
t
E 3rd St
Greenspot Rd
We
b
s
t
e
r
S
t
Abbey Way
Water St
Cypress St
E 5th St
Ce
n
t
r
a
l
A
v
e
Al
a
b
a
m
a
S
t
Club ViewDr
Chur
c
h
S
t
Ch
u
r
c
h
A
v
e
Pa
l
m
A
v
e
B
o
u
l
d
e
r
A
v
e
Or
a
n
g
e
S
t
5th St
F
o
o
t
h
i
l
l
F
w
y
S
t
a
t
e
R
t
e
2
1
0
Baseline St
Pa
t
h
:
U
:
\
G
I
S
\
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
\
0
3
_
M
X
D
s
_
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
\
F
i
g
1
_
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
F
e
a
t
u
r
e
s
.
m
x
d
,
j
a
n
d
e
r
s
o
n
1
/
2
2
/
2
0
2
1
Conveyance Pipeline
Plunge Creek Quarry Basin Site
Weaver Basins Proposed Layout
Weaver Basins SiteN
SOURCE: ESRI EVWD
Figure 1Project Features
0 1,000
Feet
SURGE TANK
PUMPING PLANT
BASIN EMERGENCYOVERFLOW CULVERT
SOIL STOCKPILE AREA
BASIN 5
BASIN 4 BASIN 3 BASIN 2 BASIN 1
FOREBAYTANK
BASIN INLET PIPING
OUTLET STRUCTUREW/ FLAP GATE
Pa
t
h
:
U
:
\
G
I
S
\
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
\
0
3
_
M
X
D
s
_
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
\
F
i
g
2
_
W
e
a
v
e
r
B
a
s
i
n
.
m
x
d
,
j
a
n
d
e
r
s
o
n
1
/
1
9
/
2
0
2
1
Weaver Basins SiteN
SOURCE: Nearmap, 2020.EVWD
Figure 2Weaver Basins Layout
0 200
Feet
Addendum No 2 to the Final Environmental Impact Report: SCH#: 2015101058
Sterling Natural Resource Center 5 ESA / 150005.02
Addendum No. 2 the 2016 Final EIR January 2021
This use of the site for groundwater recharge would be consistent with the future proposed use of
the site evaluated in the San Bernardino Valley Water Conservation District (Conservation
District) Upper Santa Ana River Wash Habitat Conservation Plan (Wash Plan) and
Environmental Impact Report. The Conservation District would be a Responsible Agency in
approving use of the site for groundwater recharge to ensure consistency with the Wash Plan.
Treated Water Conveyance Pipeline
A modified alignment for a new 30-inch diameter water conveyance pipeline would connect to
the EIR-certified SNRC alignment at the intersection of 5th Street and Central Avenue, for the
purpose of conveying treated water to the two new recharge sites. The modified pipeline
alignment would travel south along Central Avenue to the intersection of Central Avenue and 3rd
Street. From 3rd Street, the modified pipeline alignment would travel east until the intersection of
5th Street and Church Avenue. From 5th Street, the pipeline alignment would travel east and
cross under State Route 210 (SR-210). Once under SR-210, 5th Street turns into Greenspot Road.
The pipeline alignment would continue east in the public rights-of-way of Greenspot Road. For
the Plunge Creek Quarry Basins site, the pipeline alignment would head south at the intersection
of the Greenspot Road and Orange Street, where it would travel approximately 0.4 mile to the
Plunge Creek Quarry Basins site. From SR-210 to the Plunge Creek Quarry Basins site, the
pipeline alignment would be approximately 1.30 miles long. For the Weaver Basins site, the
pipeline would either travel down Greenspot Road to the recharge site or the pipeline could travel
south at the intersection of Greenspot Road and Church Street and then east along Old Greenspot
Road to the recharge site. The pipeline would extend approximately 1.7 miles from SR-210 to the
Weaver Basins site (see Figure 1).
Construction of the treated water pipeline to the recharge basins would involve trenching using
conventional cut and cover technique or directional drilling techniques where necessary under
highways or drainages. The pipeline would be installed primarily within existing roadway
rights-of-way to the extent feasible. The trenching technique would include saw cutting of the
pavement, trench excavation, pipe installation, backfill operations, and re -surfacing to the
original condition.
Construction zones in roadways would be approximately 20 feet wide across one or two traffic
lanes. Open trenches would be between approximately 10 and 15 feet wide. The construction
corridor would be wide enough to accommodate the trench and to allow for staging areas and
vehicle access. Offsite construction staging areas would be identified by contractors for pipe lay-
down, soil stockpiling, and equipment storage. On average 150 feet of pipeline would be installed
per day.
Trenches would be backfilled at the end of each work day or temporarily closed by covering with
steel trench plates. The construction equipment needed for pipeline installations generally
includes: backhoes, excavators, dump trucks, shoring equipment, steam roller, and plate
compactor. Typically, 15 to 20 workers would be required for pipeline installation. Excavated
suitable soils would be reused as backfill and other disposed offsite.
Addendum No 2 to the Final Environmental Impact Report: SCH#: 2015101058
Sterling Natural Resource Center 6 ESA / 150005.02
Addendum No. 2 the 2016 Final EIR January 2021
Trenchless construction methods would be employed to install pipeline under sensitive drainages,
highways, and creek levees. Trenchless installation could include either directional drilling or
jack and bore methods. All trenchless installations would require an approximately 50-foot x 100-
foot temporary construction area on each side of the crossing for installation shafts (pits),
materials, and equipment. Trenchless crossings would be designed to avoid physical impacts to
the flood control levee.
CEQA GUIDELINES FOR THE PREPARATION OF AN
ADDENDUM
This Addendum No. 2 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, 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 fur ther
documentation.
Addendum No 2 to the Final Environmental Impact Report: SCH#: 2015101058
Sterling Natural Resource Center 7 ESA / 150005.02
Addendum No. 2 the 2016 Final EIR January 2021
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.
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 No. 2 relies on the significance criteria established in the 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 Section 15150, this Addendum No. 2 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 No. 2 has incorporated by reference
Addendum No. 1 together with its additional studies and reports, and, for the instant Project
modifications, the additional studies and reports referenced in this Addendum No. 2.
CEQA CONSISTENCY EVALUATION
No substantial changes to the environment arising out of the SNRC have occurred since the
preparation of the 2016 EIR and Addendum No. 1. 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 since the 2016 EIR and Addendum No. 1 proposed by this
Addendum No. 2 include adding two new recharge basins, the Weaver Basins and the Plunge
Creek Quarry Basins, which will allow for more flexibility and reliability in providing ground
water replenishment. The proposed pipeline to these additional recharge basins, as described
above, would largely follow the same alignments as outlined in the 2016 EIR to the City Creek
and Redlands Basins, with an extension to the Weaver Basins along Greenspot Road. As such, the
only resource areas that may be affected by the Addendum No. 2 changes are aesthetics,
agriculture, biological resources, cultural resources, hydrology, noise, and transportation.
Addendum No 2 to the Final Environmental Impact Report: SCH#: 2015101058
Sterling Natural Resource Center 8 ESA / 150005.02
Addendum No. 2 the 2016 Final EIR January 2021
NO POTENTIAL FOR NEW IMPACTS TO
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
The following environmental topics are not reviewed further in this Addendum No. 2 since no
Project modifications concern them, and therefore no new impacts would occur or be more severe
than those identified in the 2016 EIR. However, the Mitigation Measures associated with these
topics adopted with the certification of the 2016 EIR remain in effect and would be applicable to
the proposed modifications.
Air Quality/GHG
The construction and use of the pipeline and two new recharge locations would not
impact air quality/GHG conditions beyond that which was described in the 2016 EIR.
The construction methods and operation activities would be similar to what was
analyzed in the 2016 EIR for the SNRC, City Creek, the East Twin Creek Spreading
Grounds, and the Redlands Basins. Earth moving activities would incl ude excavation,
grading and grooming for a temporary construction period. The site would be mostly
a balanced site requiring only minor off hauling. Operational emissions would be
minor, associated with infrequent commute visits to the manage the site. As a result,
the impacts to air quality/GHG described in Section 3.3 and 3.7 of the 2016 EIR
remain unchanged.
Geology and Mineral Resources
The construction and use of the pipeline and two new recharge locations would not
impact geological conditions beyond what was described in the 2016 EIR. The
construction of the basins would comply with the requirements of the Construction
General Permit for stormwater discharges . These requirements include the
development of a SWPPP that includes erosion control BMPs de signed to prevent
erosion from occurring onsite. Further, similar to the City Creek and the Redlands
Basins, the proposed basins would be located within the southwestern portion of San
Bernardino County, which has undergone historical subsidence. The implementation
of the basins would not result in the further withdrawal of groundwater which would
exacerbate the existing subsidence problem. Instead, the recharge basins would
recharge recycled water , contributing to the groundwater within the Bunker Hill
Subbasin . As a result , the impacts to geological resources described in Section 3.6 of
the 2016 EIR remain unchanged.
The Plunge Creek Recharge Basins would be located within an active quarry; however,
the site will be converted to recharge basins after the mineral extraction has been
completed. The land will be converted into recharge basins with approval from the San
Bernardino Valley Water Conservation District. As a result, the impacts to mineral
resources described in Section 3.6 of the 2016 EIR remain unchanged.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The construction and use of the pipeline and two new recharge locations would not
increase the use of additional chemicals or other hazards beyond that which was
Addendum No 2 to the Final Environmental Impact Report: SCH#: 2015101058
Sterling Natural Resource Center 9 ESA / 150005.02
Addendum No. 2 the 2016 Final EIR January 2021
described in the 2016 EIR. The new recharge basins are not located on parcels that are on
a list of hazardous materials sites pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. The
extension of the conveyance pipeline is not located within an emergency evacuation route
identified in the City of Highland General Plan. The recharge basins and pipeline would
be designed, constructed, and maintained in accordance with applicable City of Highland
standards to ensure that vehicular access would provide for adequate emergency access
and evacuation. As a result, the impacts due to hazards and hazardous materials described
in Section 3.8 of the 2016 EIR remain unchanged.
Population and Housing
The construction and use of the pipeline and two new recharge locations would occur on
vacant parcels and would not include demolition of any dwelling units. As described in
the 2016 EIR, the SNRC would result in five new, full-time equivalent employees, which
would not create a significant demand for new housing. The Addendum No. 2
modifications would not require any additional employees beyond what was anticipated
as part of the SNRC. As a result, the construction and use of the pipeline and two new
recharge locations would not increase the need for additional housing or otherwise
change conditions in the vicinity of the SNRC and the recharge sites beyond that which
was analyzed in the 2016 EIR. The impacts to population and housing described in
Section 3.12 of the 2016 EIR remain unchanged.
Public Services and Utilities
The construction and use of the pipeline and two new recharge locations would occur in
the same general area as the Redlands Basins described in the 2016 EIR. The new
recharge basins would not 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
The construction and use of the pipeline and two new recharge locations would not affect
recreational uses. There are no recreational uses within the proposed recharge basins
sites. The Weaver Basins property is an undeveloped partially disturbed parcel and the
Plunge Creek Quarry Basins are located in an active quarry. Thus, the impacts due to
recreational resources described in Section 3.14 of the 2016 EIR remain unchanged.
Addendum No 2 to the Final Environmental Impact Report: SCH#: 2015101058
Sterling Natural Resource Center 10 ESA / 150005.02
Addendum No. 2 the 2016 Final EIR January 2021
POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ENVIRONMENTAL
RESOURCES
Aesthetics
Summary of Project Impacts in the 2016 EIR
Table 1 summarizes the Impact and Mitigation Analysis in 2016 EIR for aesthetics. The 2016
EIR determined that the Project would have a less than significant effect to aesthetics with
implementation of Mitigation Measures AES-1 and AES-2.
TABLE 1
AESTHETICS IMPACTS AND MITIGATION SUMMARY
2016 EIR Project Impact Mitigation Measure Significance Conclusion
Impacts to Scenic Resources None Required Less than Significant
Impacts to Scenic Resources within a State Scenic Highway None Required No Impact
Degrade Visual Character or Quality of the Site AES-1 and AES-2 Less than Significant with
Mitigation
New Source of Light or Glare None Required Less than Significant
Impact and Mitigation Analysis of Project Modifications
The visual character of the area of the new recharge basin locations would not be significantly
changed by the Project modifications. The new recharge locations would be created east of SR-
210. The Weaver Basins would be located on a partially disturbed lot within the City of Highland.
The Plunge Creek Quarry Basins would be located on land currently being used as a quarry
owned by Robertson Aggregate.
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
AESTHETICS — Except as provided in Public
Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including,
but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the
existing visual character or quality of public views of
the site and its surroundings? (Public views are
those that are experienced from publicly accessible
vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area,
would the project conflict with applicable zoning and
other regulations governing scenic quality?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect daytime or nighttime
views in the area?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Addendum No 2 to the Final Environmental Impact Report: SCH#: 2015101058
Sterling Natural Resource Center 11 ESA / 150005.02
Addendum No. 2 the 2016 Final EIR January 2021
Discussion
The recharge basins and conveyance pipeline would be built within the City of Highland
jurisdiction. The City of Highland Conservation and Open Space Element specifies a goal to
preserve views and vistas, including the San Bernardino Mountain ridgelines, to enhance the
visual experience of the community (City of Highland, 2006). The modifications would not
significantly alter views of this scenic resource. Similarly, the proposed recharge basins would
not significantly alter views of the urbanized City of Highland since the basins would be low
profile facilities built upon a flat parcel. The visual impacts of the recharge basins and
conveyance pipelines would be similar to those evaluated in the 2016 EIR including within the
City Creek, at the East Twin Creek Spreading Grounds, and at the Redlands Basins.
Implementation of the Weaver Basins would modify the existing character of the neighborhood
by developing the basins on a vacant lot. Currently, the lot is partially disturbed with orchards on
the western portion and undisturbed habitat on the eastern portion of the lot. To the immediate
west of the property is the East Highland Village, a residential neighborhood. Additional
residential neighborhoods border the site to the north across Greenspot Road. Open space borders
the property to the east and the Santa Ana River to the south (see Figure 1).
Although adding the Weaver Basins would alter the visual character of the Greenspot Road
frontage for private properties to the west and north, the design of the recharge site includes
frontage landscaping to integrate the new land use into the community consistent with the
existing visual character of the area, in a manner compatible with the surrounding uses. The site
would be partially screened by existing vegetation and the topography of the northern boundary.
Further, with implementation of Mitigation Measures AES-1 and AES-2 from the 2016 EIR, the
proposed Weaver Basins would not substantially degrade the existing visual character of the
Weaver Basins site or surrounding area.
The Plunge Creek Quarry Basins would be located within a formerly active quarry and would not
degrade the existing visual character of the site or surrounding area. As a result, the impacts to
aesthetics described in Section 3.1 of the 2016 EIR remain unchanged.
Conclusion
As described in the 2016 EIR, impacts to aesthetics would be less than significant with
mitigation. Impacts related to modification of the Project are consistent with those described in
Section 3.1 of the 2016 EIR and no new mitigation is required. Impacts to aesthetics as a result of
the revisions to the Project, would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Significance Determination
Impacts from construction and operation of the Project modifications to aesthetics 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 aesthetics. 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 No 2 to the Final Environmental Impact Report: SCH#: 2015101058
Sterling Natural Resource Center 12 ESA / 150005.02
Addendum No. 2 the 2016 Final EIR January 2021
Agricultural and Forestry Resources
Summary of Project Impacts in the 2016 EIR
Table 2 summarizes the Impact and Mitigation Analysis in 2016 EIR for Agricultural and
Forestry Resources. The 2016 EIR determined that the Project would not affect Agricultural and
Forestry Resources.
TABLE 2
AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES IMPACTS AND MITIGATION SUMMARY
2016 EIR Project Impact Mitigation Measure Significance Conclusion
Impacts to Prime, Unique or Statewide
Importance Farmland None Required No Impact
Conflict with Zoning or Williamson Act Contract None Required No Impact
Conflict with Zoning of Forest Land, Timberland
or Areas Zoned for Timberland Production
None Required No Impact
Loss or Conversion of Timber Land None Required No Impact
Impact and Mitigation Analysis of Project Modifications
The Agricultural and Forestry Resources of the area would not be significantly changed by the
Project modification. The modifications to the SNRC include two new recharge basin sites east of
SR-210. The Weaver Basins would be located on a partially disturbed lot within the City of
Highland. The Plunge Creek Quarry Basins site would be located on land currently being used as
an active quarry.
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES —
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may
refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California
Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In
determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead
agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding
the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy
Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the
California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
a) 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?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning
of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code
section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public
Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by Government
Code section 51104(g))?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Addendum No 2 to the Final Environmental Impact Report: SCH#: 2015101058
Sterling Natural Resource Center 13 ESA / 150005.02
Addendum No. 2 the 2016 Final EIR January 2021
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e) 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?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Discussion
The recharge basins and conveyance pipeline would be built within City of Highland. The
Weaver Basins site includes orchards on the western portion of the site. Some of these
unmaintained trees may be removed or relocated as needed. However, the basin sites are not
mapped as Prime, Unique, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. Therefore, Project
implementation would not convert Prime, Unique, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (City of
Highland, 2006). Further, there are no mapped areas of Farmland surrounding the recharge sites
and there are no off-site improvements required by the proposed modifications that would result
in indirect conversion of Farmland. The recharge basins would not include forest land or
timberland and there are no off-site improvements required that would result in the indirect
conversion of forest land or timberland. As a result, the impacts to agricultural and forestry
resources described in Section 3.2 of the 2016 EIR remain unchanged.
Conclusion
As described in the 2016 EIR, no impacts would occur to agricultural and forestry resources.
Impacts related to modification of the Project are consistent with those described in Section 3.2 of
the EIR and no mitigation is required. Impacts to agricultural and forestry resources as a result of
the revisions to the Project, would result in no impact.
Significance Determination
Impacts from construction and operation of the Project modifications to agricultural and forestry
resources 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 agricultural and forestry 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.
Addendum No 2 to the Final Environmental Impact Report: SCH#: 2015101058
Sterling Natural Resource Center 14 ESA / 150005.02
Addendum No. 2 the 2016 Final EIR January 2021
Biological Resources
Summary of Project Impacts in the 2016 EIR
Table 3 summarizes the Impact and Mitigation Analysis in 2016 EIR for biological resources.
The 2016 EIR determined that the Project would have a less than significant effect to biological
resources with implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-5.
TABLE 3
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES IMPACTS AND MITIGATION SUMMARY
2016 EIR Project Impact Mitigation Measure Significance Conclusion
Impacts to Special Status
Plants and Wildlife BIO-1 through BIO-3 Less than Significant with Mitigation
Impacts to Riparian and other
Sensitive Communities
BIO-4 Less than Significant with Mitigation
Impacts to Wetlands None Required Less than Significant
Impact Migratory Fish and/or
Wildlife
BIO-5 Less than Significant with Mitigation
Conflict with Policies and
Ordinances Protecting
Biological Resources
None Required Less than Significant
Conflict with a HCP or NCCP None Required Less than Significant
Impact and Mitigation Analysis of Project Modifications
The modification to the SNRC to include two new recharge basins east of SR-210 would not
substantially change the Biological Resources of the area. The Weaver Basins would be located
on a partially disturbed lot within the City of Highland. The Plunge Creek Quarry Basins site
would be located on land that is currently being mined within an active quarry.
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES — Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly 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 the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or
federally protected wetlands (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through
direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Addendum No 2 to the Final Environmental Impact Report: SCH#: 2015101058
Sterling Natural Resource Center 15 ESA / 150005.02
Addendum No. 2 the 2016 Final EIR January 2021
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
d) Interfere substantially 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?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Discussion
The recharge basins and conveyance pipeline would be built within City of Highland. An EIR
was previously prepared for the Weaver Basins site to consider an earlier, unrelated project
proposal known as Heatherglen. The Heatherglen EIR included a Biological Technical Report
prepared for development of the entire site. Descriptions and analysis contained in this section are
based on information contained in the 2015 Updated General Biological and Spring Botanical
Surveys for Greenspot Partners Site West (L&L 2015) and the 2017 Updated Spring Botanical
Survey for Greenspot Partners TT 17604 (L&L 2018). These documents can be found in
Appendix A and B, respectively.
The Plunge Creek Quarry Basins will be located within what is currently an active quarry within
the Wash Plan area. Biological resources within this area are outlined in the Wash Plan EIR.
Listed and Special Status Plant Species
Two plant species have a moderate potential for occurrence at the new basin locations: the
slender-horned spineflower and Santa Ana River woollystar. However, focused plant surveys
conducted at the Weaver Basins property throughout the blooming season in 2018 did not reveal
any sensitive, federal, or state listed plant species on the site (L&L 2018). Four other special
status plants, Parry’s spineflower, Plummer’s mariposa lily, Peninsular spineflower, and
Robinson’s pepper-grass, have a moderate or low to moderate potential to occur, but were not
observed during focused protocol surveys. Nevertheless, the site has a moderate potential for
special status plant to occur on the site. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 from the
2016 EIR would require focused botanical surveys to be conducted on any of the special status
species with a moderate to high potential to occur prior to site grading. If sensitive plants are
located during these subsequent surveys, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 outlines measure necessary
to avoid, minimize, and compensate for the impact, resulting in a less than significant impact.
Therefore, impacts to special status plants would be less than significant with the pre-existing
mitigation incorporated.
Addendum No 2 to the Final Environmental Impact Report: SCH#: 2015101058
Sterling Natural Resource Center 16 ESA / 150005.02
Addendum No. 2 the 2016 Final EIR January 2021
Wildlife
San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat
San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat (SBKR) occurs on the Weaver Basins property (L&L 2015). Direct
and indirect impacts to SBKR would occur during construction of the Project and during operations
of the basins. A trapping survey was performed in 2018 by L&L Environmental for the site as part
of the Heatherglen EIR. Eleven individual SBKR were captured over three nights of trapping. The
trapping data concluded that the majority of the SBKR were located on the east and southeastern
portion of the site. The western portion of the site was unsuitable while the southwest portion of the
site has suitable soils for occupancy, but supports highly disturbed vegetation.
Understanding that the majority of the SBKR occur in the east portion of the site, the Weaver
Basins have been located to avoid the southeast portion of the property (see Figure 2). The basin
location includes larger basins in the western portion of the property where SBKR habitat is
unsuitable and smaller basins in the eastern portion of the property to minimize impacting SBKR-
occupied habitat. Nevertheless, some SBKR-occupied habitat will be eliminated by the
development of recharge basins on this property. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-2
from the 2016 EIR would require focused SBKR surveys to be conducted prior to any ground
disturbance. If impact avoidance of the SBKR is not feasible, impacted acreage would be
replaced at a ratio determined by the USFWS and CDFW pursuant to Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act and Section 2081 of the State Endangered Species Act. The Biological
Assessment already prepared for the SNRC Project would be modified to quantify compensation
requirements for the affected SBKR in the new recharge basin location. Impacts to SBKR would
be similar to the potential impacts anticipated in the 2016 EIR, but in a different location.
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with existing mitigation incorporated.
Coastal California Gnatcatcher/ White-tailed Kite/ Burrowing Owl
Coastal California gnatcatcher was not observed on the Weaver Basins site during the field
survey. The site provides low quality habitat for the Coastal California gnatcatcher, and potential
for occurrence is low. Neither White-tailed kite or Burrowing owl were observed foraging or
nesting on the Project site during survey. However, the property does have suitable habitat for
both species (L&L 2015). As a result, construction of the basins could potentially impact a
wildlife species of concern. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-2 and BIO-5 from the
2016 EIR would require focused avian surveys be conducted prior to any ground disturbance to
ensure no species would be impacted. If sensitive species are located during these subsequent
surveys, Mitigation Measure BIO-2 and BIO-5 outline measure necessary to avoid, minimize,
and compensate for the impact, resulting in a less than significant impact. As a result, impacts
would be less than significant with the implementation of existing mitigation.
Wetlands
Three historic ephemeral drainages are present on the site, trending from east to west (L&L
2015). These drainages appeared as blueline streams on previous USGS topographic quadrangle
maps (2015 and earlier) but are not shown on the latest (2018) USGS map. No evidence of water
flow was observed during the surveys (L&L 2015). All three features have been cut off from their
upstream sources by previous offsite flood control projects and road development and no longer
Addendum No 2 to the Final Environmental Impact Report: SCH#: 2015101058
Sterling Natural Resource Center 17 ESA / 150005.02
Addendum No. 2 the 2016 Final EIR January 2021
convey water onto or across the site. As a result, the drainages are not considered jurisdictional
features and impacts would be less than significant.
Local Policies and Ordinances
As mentioned in the Project Description, the Weaver Basins site currently has heritage trees as
defined by City of Highland Municipal Code. However, any such tree that is damaged or
removed as a result of the construction will be required to be replaced at a 2:1 ratio in accordance
with the City of Highland Municipal Code Section 16.64.040. As a result, compliance with the
Municipal Code would reduce impacts to heritage trees to less than significant.
Conclusion
As described in the 2016 EIR, impacts to biological resources would be less than significant with
mitigation. Impacts related to modification of the Project are consistent with those described in
Section 3.5 of the EIR and no new mitigation is required. Impacts to biological resources as a
result of the modifications to the Project, would remain less than significant with existing
mitigation incorporated.
Significance Determination
Impacts from construction and operation of the Project modifications to biological resources 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 biological 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.
Addendum No 2 to the Final Environmental Impact Report: SCH#: 2015101058
Sterling Natural Resource Center 18 ESA / 150005.02
Addendum No. 2 the 2016 Final EIR January 2021
Cultural Resources
Summary of Project Impacts in the 2016 EIR
Table 4 summarizes the Impact and Mitigation Analysis in 2016 EIR for cultural resources. The
2016 EIR determined that the Project would have a less than significant effect to cultural
resources with implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-5.
TABLE 4
CULTURAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION SUMMARY
2016 EIR Project Impact Mitigation Measure Significance Conclusion
Impacts to Historic or
Archeological Resources CUL-1 through CUL-3 Less than Significant with Mitigation
Impacts Directly or indirectly
Paleontological Resources
CUL-4 Less than Significant with Mitigation
Disturb Human Remains CUL-5 Less than Significant with Mitigation
Impact Tribal Cultural Resources CUL-1 through CUL-3 and CUL-5 Less than Significant with Mitigation
Impact and Mitigation Analysis of Project Modifications
The Cultural Resources of the area ha ve not substantially changed since the preparation of the
2016 EIR. The modifications to the SNRC includes two new recharge basins east of SR -210.
The Weaver Basins would be located on a partially disturbed lot within the City of Highland.
The Plunge Creek Quarry Basins site would be located on land currently being mined within an
active quarry.
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CULTURAL RESOURCES — Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource pursuant to
§15064.5?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to
§15064.5?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of dedicated cemeteries? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
Discussion
The recharge basins and conveyance pipeline would be built within City of Highland. The
Weaver Basins site, previously known as the Heatherglen site, had a Phase 1 cultural resource
report prepared for the site in December of 2017 and is discussed below (Appendix C). The
Plunge Creek Quarry Basins are located within what is currently an active quarry. No cultural
resources are anticipated to occur at the Plunge Creek Quarry Basins.
The Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment identified no archeological resources but did identify
five historic resources within or partially within the Weaver Basins site (L&L 2017). During the
Addendum No 2 to the Final Environmental Impact Report: SCH#: 2015101058
Sterling Natural Resource Center 19 ESA / 150005.02
Addendum No. 2 the 2016 Final EIR January 2021
survey two of the five historical resources could not be found and were considered destroyed.
Therefore, these two resources would not be impacted by the Project. The remaining three
historical resources did not retain sufficient integrity to be considered eligible for inclusion in the
California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) and no evidence was detected to indicate that
any of these resources have the potential to yield additional information important to history
(L&L 2017). These areas are recommended in the Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment as not
eligible for the CRHR and not significant pursuant to CEQA. Additionally, the Phase I Cultural
Resources Assessment concluded these areas are not eligible as cultural resources under Section
16.32.060 of the City of Highland Municipal Code (L&L 2017). However, mitigation is required
to reduce the potential adverse impacts to unknown historic age resources that may be
encountered during ground-disturbing construction activities. Implementation of Mitigation
Measures CUL-1 through CUL-4 from the 2016 EIR would reduce impacts to unknown
resources to less than significant. As a result, the impacts to cultural resources described in
Section 3.5 of the 2016 EIR remain unchanged.
During tribal consultation on the Heatherglen site, now the Weaver Basins site, three tribes
responded and all confirmed that the site does not have any specific concerns regarding
cultural/tribal resources (L&L 2017). However, due to the unearthing of unknown resources
during ground disturbance, the tribes requested that a Native American Monitor be onsite during
ground disturbing activities. As a result, Mitigation Measure CUL-1 through CUL-3 from the
2016 EIR would reduce impacts to unknown resources to less than significant. As a result, the
impacts to tribal cultural resources described in Section 3.5 of the 2016 EIR remain unchanged.
Conclusion
As described in the 2016 EIR, impacts to cultural resources would be less than significant with
mitigation. Impacts related to modification of the Project are consistent with those described in
Section 3.5 of the EIR and no new mitigation is required. Impacts to cultural resources as a result
of the revisions to the Project, would remain less than significant with existing mitigation
incorporated.
Significance Determination
Impacts from construction and operation to cultural 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 cultural 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.
Addendum No 2 to the Final Environmental Impact Report: SCH#: 2015101058
Sterling Natural Resource Center 20 ESA / 150005.02
Addendum No. 2 the 2016 Final EIR January 2021
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 and 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 and 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
modifications to the SNRC include two new recharge basins east of SR-210. The Weaver Basins
would be located on a partially disturbed lot within the City of Highland. The Plunge Creek
Quarry Basins site would be located on land currently being used as a quarry.
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; ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Addendum No 2 to the Final Environmental Impact Report: SCH#: 2015101058
Sterling Natural Resource Center 21 ESA / 150005.02
Addendum No. 2 the 2016 Final EIR January 2021
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
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
The construction of the recharge basins and conveyance pipelines would be similar to the
construction of the SNRC, City Creek, the East Twin Creek Spreading Grounds, and the
Redlands Basins. Construction would expose bare soil to wind and rain, which could potentially
contribute pollutants to receiving waters. However, since construction of the recharge basins
would disturb greater than one acre of ground surface, it would require coverage under the
Construction General Permit. This requires the preparation and implementation of a Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that would include good housekeeping, erosion control,
sediment control, and waste management Best Management Practices (BMPs). Implementation of
the SWPPP structural BMPs would reduce the potential for sediment and other water pollutants to
come into contact with stormwater. Similar to the 2016 EIR, impacts to local surface water
quality from construction activities would be less than significant with implementation of the
SWPPP.
The operation of the recharge basins would be similar as the operation of the City Creek and the
Redlands Basins. The new basins would be required to comply with site specific engineering
report and same Title 22 recycled water regulations as the City Creek and the Redlands Basins.
As a result, the implementation of Mitigation Measure HYDRO -1 through HYDRO-4 from the
2016 EIR would ensure that the Project would not result in a new significant impact.
Conclusion
As described in the 2016 EIR, impacts to hydrology and water 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 hydrology
and water quality as a result of the revisions to the Project, would remain less than significant
with existing mitigation incorporated.
Addendum No 2 to the Final Environmental Impact Report: SCH#: 2015101058
Sterling Natural Resource Center 22 ESA / 150005.02
Addendum No. 2 the 2016 Final EIR January 2021
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. Thus, no new information
has emerged of substantial importance indicating that the Project would have one or more
significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR, and there are no significant effects not
previously examined or substantially more severe than described in the previous EIR.
Addendum No 2 to the Final Environmental Impact Report: SCH#: 2015101058
Sterling Natural Resource Center 23 ESA / 150005.02
Addendum No. 2 the 2016 Final EIR January 2021
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
Impact and Mitigation Analysis of Project Modifications
Land uses in the vicinity of the Project modifications have not changed substantially since the
preparation of the 2016 EIR. Land uses consist largely of residential, open space and public
/industrial. 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 recharge basins would not create a barrier or physically divide an established
community. The Weaver Basins property is located east of the intersection of Club View Drive and
Greenspot Road, on a partially disturbed lot within the City of Highland. To the immediate west of
the property is vacant land, formerly proposed for the now-withdrawn Heatherglen development;
residential is located to the west and north; open space to the east and the Santa Ana River to the
south (see Figure 1). The General Plan Land Use Designation for most of the site is Public/
Institution with the western portion as Planned Development/ Low Density Residential (PD/LDR),
which prescribes the land uses as single-family detached residential, and mobile homes with a
maximum intensity of six dwelling units per 1.0 acre. The existing zoning for the site is PD/R-1
Single-Family Residential, which allows for small lot single-family detached and mobile homes
parks and subdivisions, at a maximum allowable density of six dwelling units per gross acre.
Although the implementation of a new recharge basin is not explicitly compatible with Planned
Development/ Low Density Residential, the Government Code provides for the required land use
Addendum No 2 to the Final Environmental Impact Report: SCH#: 2015101058
Sterling Natural Resource Center 24 ESA / 150005.02
Addendum No. 2 the 2016 Final EIR January 2021
compatibility. It expressly exempts wastewater and water treatment facilities from local zoning
regulations, including but not limited to general plan land use designations, and from local building
regulations. Government Code section 53091(e) provides that “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…” Further, Government Code Section 53095 provides
that Section 53901 also extends to a city’s general plan land use designations. The addition of a new
recharge basin site provides additional flexibility of transferring tertiary-treated recycled water for
groundwater recharge. Under these Government Code exemptions, the Weaver and Plunge Creek
Quarry Basins would be exempt from, and thus compatible with, local zoning regulations.
Conclusion
As described in the 2016 EIR, impacts to land use would be less than significant. Impacts related
to modification of the Project are consistent with those described in Section 3.10 of the EIR and
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.
Thus, no new information has emerged of substantial importance indicating that the Project
would have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR, and there are no
significant effects not previously examined or substantially more severe than described in the
previous EIR.
Addendum No 2 to the Final Environmental Impact Report: SCH#: 2015101058
Sterling Natural Resource Center 25 ESA / 150005.02
Addendum No. 2 the 2016 Final EIR January 2021
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.
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
The Project’s regulatory setting for noise and vibration has not changed since the preparation of
the 2016 EIR. The modifications to the SNRC include two new recharge basins east of SR-210.
The Weaver Basins would be located on a partially disturbed lot within the City of Highland. The
Plunge Creek Quarry Basins site would be located on land currently being used as a quarry.
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 construction of the Weaver Basins would be located adjacent to noise sensitive residential
home to the west and north. As described in the 2016 EIR, Table 3.11-6, construction activities,
including dozer, at the Weaver Basins would typically generate noise levels of 82 dBA Leq at 50
feet from the construction noise source. These noise levels would diminish rapidly with distance
Addendum No 2 to the Final Environmental Impact Report: SCH#: 2015101058
Sterling Natural Resource Center 26 ESA / 150005.02
Addendum No. 2 the 2016 Final EIR January 2021
from the construction site at a rate of approximately 6 dBA per doubling of distance. The closest
sensitive receptor would be approximately 220 feet to the north of the basins. At this distance the
temporary noise levels would be approximately would be 69 dBA Leq at the residence.
As described in the 2016 EIR, construction activities would temporarily expose sensitive receptors
in the vicinity of the Project facilities to a substantial increase in ambient noise levels. Construction
activities associated with the recharge basins 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. Further, the City of Highland exempts construction activities within the hours of 7:00
a.m. and 10:00 p.m. with a valid written agreement with the city. As a result, the temporary
construction noise associated with the Weaver Basins would be less than significant.
In addition to construction activity, operational noise would be generated from the basins.
Mitigation Measures NOISE-2 and NOISE-3 described in the 2016 EIR require 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 by this Addendum
No. 2 would also be required to implement these mitigation measures to reduce noise levels
during operations; therefore, no new impacts are anticipated to occur as a result of the
modifications beyond that which was evaluated and mitigated in the 2016 EIR.
The construction and operation at the Plunge Creek Quarry Basins would not impact any sensitive
receptors since the site is in within an active quarry and there are no sensitive receptors in the
immediate vicinity. As a result, no impact would occur.
Conclusion
As described in the 2016 EIR, impacts to noise would be less than significant with mitigation.
Impacts related to modification of the Project are consistent with those described in Section 3.11
of the EIR and no new mitigation is required. NOISE-1 through NOISE-3 would be
implemented to reduce noise levels related to construction and operation to less than significant.
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 No 2 to the Final Environmental Impact Report: SCH#: 2015101058
Sterling Natural Resource Center 27 ESA / 150005.02
Addendum No. 2 the 2016 Final EIR January 2021
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. The modifications to the SNRC include two new recharge basins east
of SR-210. The Weaver Basins would be located on a partially disturbed lot within the City of
Highland. The Plunge Creek Quarry Basins site would be located on land currently being used as a
quarry.
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
The proposed Project modifications would temporarily increase traffic volumes during
construction activities, including construction of the recharge basins and pipeline installation.
Vehicle trips would be generated primarily by construction workers commuting to and from the
work sites, and by trucks hauling materials from each site as needed. The construction traffic
impacts associated with constructing the recharge basins and pipeline installation would be short-
Addendum No 2 to the Final Environmental Impact Report: SCH#: 2015101058
Sterling Natural Resource Center 28 ESA / 150005.02
Addendum No. 2 the 2016 Final EIR January 2021
term in nature. The primary impacts resulting from the movement of construction trucks would
include a short-term and intermittent lessening of roadway capacities due to the slower
movements and larger turning radii of the trucks compared to passenger vehicles. Drivers could
experience delays if they were traveling behind a heavy truck. The added traffic would be most
apparent on the local roadways serving the recharge basin sites. In addition, pipeline installation
would result in lane closures and possible short-term road closures that could slow or divert
traffic temporarily. The lane and road closures would not be expected to occur for longer than 3
to 4 weeks in any given location. As described in the 2016 EIR, implementation of Mitigation
Measures TR-1 through TR-3 would reduce the potential traffic impacts associated with
construction and pipeline installation by requiring all such 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.
Operational conditions would be similar to the City Creek, the East Twin Creek Spreading
Grounds, and the Redlands Basins described in the 2016 EIR. Vehicle trips would only be
required for periodic maintenance or emergency repairs.
In accordance with Senate Bill (SB) 743, the new CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision
(b) was adopted in December 2018 by the California Natural Resources Agency. These revisions
to the CEQA Guidelines criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts are
primarily focused on projects within transit priority areas and shift the focus from driver delay to
reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, creation of multimodal networks, and promotion of a mix
of land uses. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 suggests that the analysis of vehicle miles
traveled (VMT) impacts applies mainly to land use and transportation projects. Furthermore,
projects that generate or attract fewer than 110 operational trips per day would generally be
exempt from further consideration with respect to VMT and impacts are assumed to be less than
significant. Per this guidance, since the recharge basins are neither a traffic generating land use
nor a transportation project, and would generate very few operational trips, these Project
modifications can be assumed to have a less-than-significant impact with respect to VMT.
Conclusion
As described in the 2016 EIR, impacts to transportation would be less than significant with
mitigation. Impacts related to modification of the Project are consistent with those described in
Section 3.15 of the EIR and no new mitigation is required. TR-1 through TR-3 would be
implemented to reduce traffic related to construction to less than significant.
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
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.
Addendum No 2 to the Final Environmental Impact Report: SCH#: 2015101058
Sterling Natural Resource Center 29 ESA / 150005.02
Addendum No. 2 the 2016 Final EIR January 2021
SUMMARY
As described in this Addendum No. 2, 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 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 as modified 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 No. 2 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 No. 2 is the appropriate CEQA document.
The proposed modifications to the Project are minor and do not require preparation of a
Subsequent or Supplemental EIR.
2015 UPDATED GENERAL BIOLOGICAL AND SPRING BOTANICAL SURVEYS
FOR THE GREENSPOT PARTNERS SITE WEST, CITY OF HIGHLAND,
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CA
±38.5 Acres Surveyed
APNs 1210-211-18, -21, -23, & a portion of 1210-281-01, & -02, TT 17604, City of Highland,
Section 2, Township 1 South, Range 3 W est, USGS Redlands 7.5’ Topographic Quadrangle
Prepared For:
Tom Bassett
Greenspot Partners, Inc.
5120 Live Oak Canyon Rd.
La Verne, CA 91750
Prepared By:
Leslie Irish, Principal
Guy Bruyea, Biological Investigator
Jeffrey Sonnentag, Technical Editor
Julia Fox, Technical Editor
lirish@llenviroinc.com
gbruyea@llenviroinc.com
jsonnentag@llenviroinc.com
jkfox@llenviroinc.com
Report Summary:
Site conditions remain relatively unchanged from the 2014 survey. The site supports a mixture of
agricultural land, disturbed areas, and relatively undisturbed alluvial fan sage scrub. Past and present
surveys identified several special status species onsite, including coastal whiptail, black-tailed jackrabbit,
loggerhead shrike, Cooper’s hawk, Lawrence’s goldfinch, northwestern San Diego pocket mouse, and
Los Angeles pocket mouse. Occupied San Bernardino kangaroo rat habitat is present in the general
area; however, the tract map and lot layout avoids the known and trapped locations of the rat in two
consecutive studies (2005 & 2011). Habitat suitable for raptor and migratory bird nesting is present within
and around the site. Burrowing owl is not currently occupying the site, but suitable habitat is present.
USGS mapped ephemeral drainages onsite were reevaluated in 2015 and it has been determined that no
state or federal jurisdictional features are present. 50 trees in the study area qualify as “heritage trees” as
defined by the City of Highland municipal code. Scalebroom is present within portions of historic
drainages onsite.
Surveys Conducted By: Guy Bruyea
Surveys Conducted On: April 6, 10, May 13, June 9, and July 29, 2015
Report Date: December, 2015
SIGNED: (Guy Bruyea, Biologist)
Telephone: 951-681-4929 Email: gbruyea@llenviroinc.com
TABLE OF CONTENTS
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY ...................................................................................................... iii
1.0) INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1
1.1) Location........................................................................................................................... 1
Figure 1. Vicinity Map.......................................................................................................... 2
Figure 2. Project Location ................................................................................................... 3
Figure 3. Aerial Photograph ................................................................................................ 4
1.2) Vegetation and Setting .................................................................................................... 5
1.3) Soils and Topography ...................................................................................................... 5
Figure 4. Soils Map ............................................................................................................. 6
2.0) REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT ........................................................................................ 7
2.1) Federal Endangered Species Act .................................................................................... 7
2.2) Jurisdictional Determination of W etlands, “Waters of the U.S.” ........................................ 7
2.2.1) United States Clean Water Act, Section 404 ............................................................. 7
2.2.2) United States Clean Water Act, Section 401 ............................................................. 8
2.2.3) California Department of Fish and Game Code, Section 1600 .................................. 8
2.3) California Department of Fish and Wildlife ....................................................................... 9
2.3.1) California Endangered Species Act ........................................................................... 9
2.3.2) California Department of Fish and Game Code, Section 1600 .................................. 9
2.3.3) California Natural Diversity Database ........................................................................ 9
2.4) California Native Plant Society ........................................................................................ 9
2.5) California Environmental Quality Act ..............................................................................10
2.6) Migratory Bird Treaty Act ................................................................................................10
2.7) City of Highland Municipal Code .....................................................................................10
3.0) METHODS AND PERSONNEL .........................................................................................12
3.1) Literature Review ...........................................................................................................12
3.2) Surveys ..........................................................................................................................12
3.2.1) General Biological Survey Methods .........................................................................12
Table 1. Survey Times and Conditions ...........................................................................13
3.2.2) Focused Botanical Field Methods ............................................................................13
4.0) RESULTS ..........................................................................................................................15
4.1) Literature Review Results ...............................................................................................15
4.2) Vegetation Series ...........................................................................................................16
Figure 5. Habitat Map .....................................................................................................17
Table 2. Habitat Onsite ...................................................................................................18
4.2.1) Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub ...........................................................................................18
4.2.2) Peninsular (Cismontane) Juniper Woodland and Scrub ...........................................19
4.2.3) Non-Native Eucalyptus W oodland ............................................................................19
4.2.4) Disturbed / Ruderal Habitat ......................................................................................20
4.2.5) Ornamental ..............................................................................................................20
4.2.6) Extensive Agriculture ...............................................................................................20
4.3) Plant Species .................................................................................................................20
4.3.1) Heritage Trees .........................................................................................................21
4.4) Wildlife Species ..............................................................................................................21
4.4.1) Invertebrates ............................................................................................................21
4.4.2) Amphibians and Reptiles .........................................................................................22
4.4.3) Birds ........................................................................................................................22
Figure 6. Sensitive Species Map ....................................................................................23
4.4.4) Mammals .................................................................................................................24
5.0) IMPACTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................26
Figure 7. Development Plan ..................................................................................................28
6.0) REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................29
APPENDIX A ............................................................................................................................32
Table 3. List of Plant and Wildlife Species Observed/Identified 2015 .....................................32
Table 4. List of Plant and Wildlife Species Identified in Previous Surveys ..............................38
Table 5: Sensitive Species Probability Table ........................................................................45
Table 6. Location of Special Status Species ..........................................................................53
Table 7. Climatic Data ...........................................................................................................53
APPENDIX B ............................................................................................................................54
Site Photographs ...................................................................................................................54
Certification ...........................................................................................................................59
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
L&L Environmental, Inc. conducted biological surveys on Greenspot Partners, Inc.’s ±38.5-acre
project in the City of Highland, California. The purpose of this study was to examine the subject
property and update site data regarding the presence/absence and current condition of
biological resources onsite, including vegetation, habitat, special status species, and
jurisdictional drainages. L&L conducted surveys of the current study area and an adjacent area
in 2005, 2011, and 2014.
Site conditions and the associated recommendations remain essentially unchanged from the
2014 survey. The subject property can be characterized as a mix of disturbed and native
habitats. The western half of the site has been disturbed and is mostly converted for agricultural
uses. It currently contains Eucalyptus groves, a jojoba plantation, and recently disked areas.
Several structures within the southwestern portion of the site that were present during previous
surveys by L&L have been removed, but some cement foundations remain. The eastern half of
the site is relatively undisturbed alluvial fan sage scrub. Land use varies adjacent to the survey
area and includes anthropogenic disturbances, such as low and high-density residential areas,
commercial strip malls, gravel pit mines, paved and unimproved roads, power lines, and off-road
vehicle (ORV) activity.
No state or federally listed endangered or threatened species were present or had high or
moderate potential of occurring in the survey area following the surveys, with the exception of
San Bernardino kangaroo rat (Dipodomys merriami parvus). San Bernardino kangaroo rat
(SBKR) was trapped and occurs within adjacent habitat (2005 & 2011). The project site is
located within critical habitat for the species.
The proponent has proposed a development (current study area) to avoid all of the occupied
traps, approximately 71% of occupied habitat, and over 50% of the alluvial fan sage scrub
(critical habitat). Consultation with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and mitigation measures
will be required prior to any habitat disturbance onsite.
The current survey identified the coastal whiptail (Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri) within the
project area. Previous surveys in 2005, 2011, and 2014 identified four (4) other special status
species in the current survey area; Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii), loggerhead shrike
(Lanius ludovicianus), Lawrence’s goldfinch (Spinus lawrencei), and San Diego black-tailed
jackrabbit (Lepus californicus bennettii). No special status botanical species were observed
during current or previous surveys. All of the observed sensitive species are California Species
of Concern (with no federal or state listing) and are not generally regulated as individual
species; however, all of the bird species are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (no
federal or state listing), which is intended to prevent impacts to live individuals and active nests.
A preconstruction raptor and nesting bird survey (valid for 30 days) is recommended prior to any
site disturbance during the nesting season (February 1 through August 31). If nesting raptors or
migratory birds are present avoidance of nesting trees will be required and a buffer established
until juvenile birds have fledged and/or an authorized biologist has verified that the nest has
become inactive.
Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) surveys were conducted in 2005 and were negative.
Currently no burrowing owl are believed to be occupying the site. Since this species is
migratory and the site supports suitable habitat a preconstruction clearance survey (valid for 30
days) is recommended prior to site clearing and disturbance.
Other sensitive species trapped during the SBKR studies included San Diego pocket mouse
(Chaetodipus fallax fallax) and L. A. pocket mouse (Perognathus longimembris brevinasus).
Impacts to these species are generally not regulated.
The 2006 jurisdictional delineation identified one (1) jurisdictional feature; however, a 2015
reevaluation found that there is currently no flow from the site and no jurisdictional features are
present. All three (3) USGS mapped ephemeral blueline drainages that historically crossed the
site have been cut off from their upstream sources during previous offsite flood control projects
and road development and show no evidence of flow due to runoff of precipitation onsite.
A 2006 heritage tree survey identified 50 heritage trees within the current study area. If impacts
to this site are proposed, consultation with the City of Highland will be necessary to determine
required mitigation and minimization measures.
Scalebroom (Lepidospartum squamatum) is present within portions of the drainages onsite.
This plant is a highly evolved and persistent species capable of lifting concrete improvements
placed above graded areas that contain remnants of the plant. L&L recommends both a
focused survey for the location of the plant on the property and eradication of the plant from any
areas planned for development prior to soil disturbance.
1.0) INTRODUCTION
The following report was written by L&L Environmental, Inc. for Greenspot Partners, Inc. It
describes the results of biological surveys, including general biological and spring botanical,
conducted on a proposed development located on lands within the City of Highland. The project
site consists of APNs 1210-211-18, -21, -23, and a portion of 1210-281-01, and -02 totaling
±38.5 acres.
Our assessment consisted of (1) a records search and literature review, conducted to determine
what species of concern are in the project area and proximity to closest documented special
status species and (2) field reconnaissance, intended to identify plants and animals on the
property and presence/absence of habitat for species of concern. This report is intended to
update and supplement existing data and reports.
1.1) Location
The subject property is generally located north of Interstate Highway 10 (I-10) (Figure 1).
Specifically, the site is located east of Highway 30 and south of Greenspot Road in the City of
Highland (Figure 2). The project site is situated within Section 2 of Township 1 south, Range 3
west of the USGS Redlands 7.5’ series quadrangle map.
Portions of the southern boundary of the site are defined by the presence of a barbwire fence.
The site is generally bounded as follows: to the west by disturbed open space and a mixture of
low and high-density residential developments, Church Street, 5th Street, and Highway 30
beyond; to the east by mostly undisturbed open space with San Bernardino National Forest
lands beyond; to the north by Greenspot Road and high-density residential developments, with
Santa Ana Canyon Road, Baseline Road, and East Highland Reservoir beyond; and to the
south by Abbey W ay, a row of power lines, and the Santa Ana Wash basin, with the City of
Redlands and I-10 beyond (Figure 3).
Project Area
Project Area
Greenspot Rd.
Gold Buckle Rd.
Abbey Way
Project Area
1.2) Vegetation and Setting
The western half of the site has been disturbed and is mostly converted for agricultural uses.
The remnants of several structures that were present during previous surveys are located within
the southwestern portion of the site in association with these disturbances. The eastern half of
the survey area is relatively undisturbed alluvial fan sage scrub.
Land use varies adjacent to the survey area and includes anthropogenic disturbances, such as
low and high-density residential areas, commercial strip malls, gravel pit mines, paved and
unimproved roads, power lines, and off-road vehicle (ORV) activity. Redlands Municipal Airport
is approximately 1.75 miles south of the subject property.
Three (3) USGS mapped ephemeral blueline stream areas are present on the subject property,
trending from the northeast to the southwest away from the foothills of the San Bernardino
Mountains. No evidence of water flow was observed within these mapped features. Most
wetland indicator tree species were not found in association with the mapped blueline stream
areas onsite, with the exception of western sycamore (Platanus racemosa). Mapped ephemeral
blueline stream areas onsite can be characterized as being inhabited with common alluvial sage
scrub perennial plants, including California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum var. foliolosum),
California sagebrush (Artemesia californica), chaparral yucca (Yucca whipplei), yerba santa
(Eriodictyon sp.), and various low-growing native annual plant species.
1.3) Soils and Topography
Soils on the project site (Figure 4) were mapped by the Soil Conservation Service (1971) as
Soboba gravelly loamy sand (SoC) and Soboba stony loamy sand (SpC). Soils observed on the
site are sandy-loamy to gravelly with and (mostly) without cryptobiotic crusts. Clay soils were
not observed on the site.
Topographically, the site is primarily flat and contains low-relief rolling hills, shallow depressions,
and open disturbed lands with a combined maximum vertical relief of roughly 32 feet between
highest and lowest points on the property. Elevation onsite ranges from approximately 1,347 to
1,379 feet above mean sea level. Surrounding topographic features in the immediate project
vicinity include mostly flat areas with low-relief rolling hills containing canyons and shallow
drainages. Other areas south of the site (within the Santa Ana River Wash basin) and areas
east and north of the site (within San Bernardino National Forest lands) contain significantly
more topographic relief.
SoC = Soboba gravelly loamy sand (0-9% slopes)
SpC = Soboba stony loamy sand (2-9% slopes)
2.0) REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT
2.1) Federal Endangered Species Act
The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFW S), under the auspices of the federal Endangered
Species Act (FESA) of 1973 (as amended), manages and protects species listed as
endangered or threatened. An endangered species is defined as a species “in danger of
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range” while a threatened species is
defined as “likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future.”
“Take” of listed species is prohibited under Section 9 (a)(1)(B) of the FESA. The term “take” is
defined as follows in Section 3 (18) of the FESA: “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound,
trap, kill, capture or collect or to engage in any such conduct.” Harm is further defined as
significant habitat alteration that results in death or injury to listed species by significantly
impairing behavior patterns such as breeding, feeding, or sheltering. The USFW S can issue a
permit for “take” of listed species incidental to otherwise lawful activities. Procedures for
obtaining a permit for incidental take are identified under Section 7 of FESA for federal
properties or where federal actions are involved, and are identified under Section 10 of FESA
for non-federal actions.
2.2) Jurisdictional Determination of Wetlands, “W aters of the U.S.”
Three agencies generally regulate activities within streams, wetlands, and riparian areas in
California: (1) the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) regulates activities under section 404 of the
federal Clean Water Act; (2) the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RW QCB) regulates
activities under section 401 of the federal Clean W ater Act (CWA); and (3) the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) regulates activities within wetlands under Fish and
Game Code Sections 1600-1616.
2.2.1) United States Clean W ater Act, Section 404
The ACOE has jurisdiction over “W etlands” and “W aters of the United States” under Section
404 of the Clean W ater Act (CWA). Permitting is required for activities that will result in
discharge of dredge or fill material into “W aters of the United States” or adjacent wetlands and
associated habitat. By definition these include all waterways, streams, intermittent streams, and
their tributaries that could be used for interstate commerce. The term “interstate commerce”
has been broadly interpreted to include use by migratory waterfowl and out-of-state tourism. In
non-tidal waters jurisdictional limits extend to the ordinary high water mark (OHWM), which is
defined as that line on the shore established by fluctuations of water and indicated by physical
characteristics such as clear natural line impression on the bank, shelving, changes in the
character of soil, and destruction of the surrounding area. The upstream limit of ACOE
jurisdiction is that point on the stream where the OHWM is no longer perceptible. Since flow
patterns vary drastically from event to event alluvial fans do not always exhibit an OHWM or
other evidences of repeated water flow. That portion of an alluvial fan that experiences sheet
flow is not generally regulated as W aters of the United States; however, an inter-braided
streambed, evidenced by an OHWM, is within ACOE jurisdiction. Vernal pools and other types
of wetlands are also regulated by the ACOE as “Waters of the United States”.
2.2.2) United States Clean W ater Act, Section 401
The RW QCB has jurisdiction over similar “W etlands” and “W aters of the United States” under
Section 401 of the CW A and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act under the California
Water Code. Permitting is required for activities that will result in a discharge of soils, nutrients,
chemicals, detrital materials, or other pollutants into “W aters of the United States” or adjacent
wetlands that will affect water quality of those bodies and the area watershed.
2.2.3) California Department of Fish and Game Code, Section 1600
The CDFW, through provisions of the CDFG Code (Sections 1600-1616), is empowered to
issue agreements (“Streambed Alteration Agreement”) for projects that will adversely affect
wildlife habitat associated with any river, stream, or lake edges. Streams and rivers are defined
by the presence of a channel bed, banks, and intermittent flow. CDFW regulates wetland areas
only to the extent that those wetlands are part of a river, stream, or lake as defined by CDFW .
Determining limits of a wetland is not typically done in obtaining CDFW Agreements because
the intent of the 1600 program is to safeguard riparian associated wildlife habitat. Riparian
habitat includes willows (Salix sp.), mulefat (Baccharis salicifolia), and other vegetation typically
associated with the banks of a stream or lake shoreline. In most situations wetlands associated
with a stream or lake will fall within the limits of riparian habitat. Thus, the limits of CDFW
jurisdiction based on riparian habitat will automatically include any wetland areas and may
include additional areas that do not meet ACOE criteria for soils and/or hydrology (e.g., where
riparian woodland canopy extends beyond the banks of a stream away from frequently
saturated soils).
2.3) California Department of Fish and Wildlife
2.3.1) California Endangered Species Act
California Endangered Species Act (CESA) definitions of endangered and threatened species
parallel those defined in the FESA. The CESA defines an endangered species as “. . . a native
species or subspecies of a bird, mammal, fish, amphibian, reptile or plant which is in serious
danger of becoming extinct throughout all, or a significant portion, of its range due to one or
more causes including loss of habitat, change in habitat, over exploitation, predation,
competition or disease.” Endangered species are in serious danger of becoming extinct and
threatened species are likely to become endangered species in the foreseeable future
(according to Sections 2062 and 2067, respectively, of the California Fish and Game Code).
Candidate species are those under formal review by the CDFW for listing as endangered or
threatened (Section 2067). Prior to being considered for protected status the CDFW designates
a species as being of special concern. Species of special concern are those for which the
CDFW has information indicating decline.
2.3.2) California Department of Fish and Game Code, Section 1600
This section allows the CDFW to issue agreements (“Streambed Alteration Agreement”) for
projects that will adversely affect wildlife habitat associated with any river, stream, or lake
edges. A detailed discussion of Section 1600 under the Fish and Game Code can be found in
section 2.2.3 above.
2.3.3) California Natural Diversity Database
The California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) is a database that ranks overall condition of
sensitive species and vegetation communities on global (throughout its range) and state (within
California) levels. Additionally, subspecies and varieties are assigned a ranking for global
condition as well. Ranking is numerical ranging from 1 to 5, with 1 indicating very few remaining
individuals or little remaining habitat and 5 indicating a demonstrably secure to ineradicable
population condition. State ranks may also include a threat assessment ranging from 1 (very
threatened) to 3 (no current threats known).
2.4) California Native Plant Society
The California Native Plant Society (CNPS) has cataloged California's rare and endangered
plants into lists according to population distributions and viability. These lists are numbered and
indicate the following: (1A) presumed extinct in California; (1B) rare, threatened, or endangered
throughout their range; (2) rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common in
other states; (3) more information is needed to establish rarity; and (4) plants of limited
distribution in California (i.e., naturally rare in the wild) but whose populations do not appear to
be susceptible to threat.
2.5) California Environmental Quality Act
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires identification of environmental effects
from discretionary projects. Significant effects are to be mitigated by avoidance, minimization,
rectification, or compensation whenever possible.
Effects to all state and federal listed species are considered significant under CEQA. In addition
to formally listed species, CEQA Section 15380(d) considers effects to species that are
demonstrably endangered or rare as important or significant. These definitions can include
state designated species of special concern, federal candidate and proposed species, CNDDB
tracked species, and California Native Plant Society 1B and 2 plants.
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines specifically addresses biological resources and
encompasses a broad range of resources to be considered.
2.6) Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 (16 USC 703-711) is an international treaty that
makes it unlawful to take, possess, buy, sell, purchase, or barter any migratory bird listed in 50
CFR Part 10, including feathers or other parts, nests, eggs, or products, except as allowed by
implementing regulations (50 CFR 21). Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3800 of the CDFG Code
prohibit the take, possession, or destruction of birds, their nests, or eggs. The MBTA requires
that project-related disturbance at active nesting territories be reduced or eliminated during
critical phases of the nesting cycle (February 1 through August 31). Disturbance that causes
nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort (e.g., killing or abandonment of eggs or
young) or loss of habitat upon which the birds depend could be considered “take” and constitute
a violation of the MBTA.
2.7) City of Highland Municipal Code
Section 16.64.040 of the municipal code deals with preservation of heritage trees and specifies
required conditions and permits necessary for removal of heritage trees. Section 16.06.080
defines heritage trees:
“Heritage tree” shall mean any live tree, shrub, or plant which meets at least one
of the following criteria:
1. All woody plants in excess of 15 feet in height and having a
single trunk circumference of 24 inches or more, as measured
four and one-half feet above ground level; or
2. Multitrunk trees having a total circumference of 30 inches or
more, as measured four and one-half feet from ground level; or
3. A stand of trees, the nature of which makes each dependent
upon the others for survival; or
4. Any other tree as may be deemed historically or culturally
significant by the community development director or designee
because of size, condition, location, or aesthetic qualities.
3.0) METHODS AND PERSONNEL
3.1) Literature Review
Pertinent literature was reviewed to identify local occurrences and habitat requirements of
special status species and communities occurring in the reg ion. Literature reviewed included
compendia provided by resource agencies (CDFG 2003a, 2003b; USFW S 1999), CNDDB
(2015) reports for the vicinity, and reports from previous studies completed on the property.
Latin names of plants follow The Jepson Manual (Hickman 1993). Latin names of animals
follow A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians (Stebbins 1985) for reptiles and
amphibians, California Mammals (Jameson and Peeters 1988) for mammals, American
Ornithologists’ Union (1983, 1989) and National Audubon Society, The Sibley Guide to Birds
(2000) for birds, and American Insects: A Handbook of the Insects of America North of Mexico
(Arnett 2000) for insects.
3.2) Surveys
L&L biologist Guy Bruyea visited the project area on April 6, 10, May 13, June 9, and July 29,
2015 to describe vegetation and habitat, evaluate probabilities that special status animals and
plants might occur within the project site, and conduct a focused botanical survey. Temperature
ranged from 59° to 92° F and wind speed ranged from 0-8 mph. A total of about 16 person-
hours were spent on the site.
3.2.1) General Biological Survey Methods
All habitat types on the site were visited on foot. The site was surveyed by conducting a series
of transects across the subject property where possible, stopping periodically for observations
and notations. A general habitat map and field notes were completed at the time of the survey.
All field surveys were conducted during daylight hours. Digital photographs were taken to
record condition of the site during the present surveys.
Table 1. Survey times and conditions.
Date Time ° F Cloud % Wind Biologist
Start-End Start/End Start/End Start/End
April 6 0800-0900 Partly Cloudy, 59/65 100/80 0/2 Bruyea
April 10 0800-1230 Clear, 63/79 0/0 1/4 Bruyea
May 13 1330-1700 Partly Cloudy, 68/78 0/0 3/7 Bruyea
June 9 1030-1500 Clear, 70/86 0/0 0/4 Bruyea
July 29 1300-1530 Clear, 85/92 0/0 4/8 Bruyea
Plants of uncertain identity were collected and subsequently identified from keys, descriptions,
and illustrations in Abrams (1923, 1944, 1951, 1960), Abrams and Ferris (1960), Hickman
(1993), Munz (1974), and Parker (1999). These procedures provide a general assessment of
habitat and vegetation on a site and act as a tool to determine probability of special status
species occurring onsite. A species list is included in Appendix A.
3.2.2) Focused Botanical Field Methods
Information on special status rare plant species within the project vicinity was gathered from
several sources including California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and
Endangered Plants of California (CNPS 2015), CNDDB (CDFW 2015), and CalFlora (2014).
Maps depicting all known sensitive plant species locations within the project vicinity were
produced to aid in determining the target species for survey.
L&L conducted a habitat assessment for the species in Table 4, Appendix A. The habitat
assessment followed the recommendations of the California Native Plant Society (CNPS 2001).
The survey area’s suitability to support identified species was determined using indicators,
including the presence of suitable habitat, moisture, and soil conditions.
A complete floristic study of the survey area, as required in a complete CEQA analysis, was
conducted between April and July 2015 (Table 1). Focused plant surveys were conducted
throughout the year (early, mid, and late season) to provide full coverage and to ensure surveys
occurred during the typical blooming period for these species. The plant surveys followed
protocols recommended in USFW S, CDFW (CDFG 2009), and CNPS guidelines for rare plant
surveys. All plants encountered were identified to a level necessary to ensure detection of
covered or special status species.
This methodology is consistent with recommendations by the California Native Plant Society
(CNPS 2001) because it provides more than "reasonable coverage" of all habitat types and was
"floristic in nature". Systematic field techniques in all habitats of the site (transects) were
employed to ensure thorough coverage of potential impact areas sufficient to provide
comprehensive reporting.
A floral inventory of all botanical species observed during the course of the surveys is included
in Table 3, Appendix A.
Rainfall in southern California in 2014-2015 was well below average and had been below
average for the previous three (3) seasons. Insufficient early winter precipitation amounts
resulted in a relatively “unproductive” year for spring annual germination and subsequent
identification. Due to the ongoing drought in the region and low rainfall amounts, annual plants
were relatively scarce and most surveys were performed after many spring annual plant species
had begun to senesce. However, many annual plant species were identified from senescing or
fully senesced plants during this study. In addition, drought conditions can take more than one
year to recover from and not all seeds germinate every year. Surveys conducted over multiple
years and at varying times throughout the year provide the most comprehensive data.
4.0) RESULTS
4.1) Literature Review Results
Certain plants and animals have been listed as threatened or endangered under state or federal
Endangered Species Acts. Other species have not been formally listed but declining
populations or habitat availability are reasons for concern in regard to their long-term viability.
These species are included in lists compiled by resource management agencies or private
conservation organizations. In this report the term “special status species” refers to all species
included in one or more compendia or formal list of threatened or endangered species. The
CNDDB was examined to determine if sensitive species have been previously documented
onsite.
Seven (7) previous reports for this site and a wider area were completed by L&L and two (2)
previous reports by Natural Resources Assessment, Inc. were examined. These included
surveys for burrowing owl and nesting raptor species in 2005 (L&L 2005), a focused survey in
2006 for trees classified as “heritage trees” by the City of Highland (L&L 2006a), a jurisdictional
delineation in 2006 (L&L 2006b) and a reevaluation in 2015 (L&L 2015a), general biological and
spring botanical surveys in 2011 (L&L 2011), updated general biological and focused botanical
surveys for the Greenspot Partners site, separated into east and west (L&L 2015b and 2015c),
and focused surveys for San Bernardino kangaroo (SBKR) rat by Natural Resources
Assessment, Inc. conducted in 2005 and 2011.
Previous surveys, were conducted over a larger area than reported here, including adjacent
parcels, so previously observed common species included in Table 4 (Appendix A) may have
occurred immediately adjacent to, but not on the subject property. Sensitive species locations
were recorded and GPS coordinates reported.
In 2005 no burrowing owls were identified using the site; however, where ground squirrel activity
was present within the western half of the property suitable habitat was judged to be present
and a preconstruction survey (valid for 30 days) was recommended to occur prior to site
clearing and/or disturbance. Past nesting by raptors in the Eucalyptus trees present onsite was
also identified and a preconstruction survey for nesting raptors was recommended if disturbance
or site clearing is to occur between February 1 and August 31.
The 2006 survey for “heritage trees” identified 114 trees meeting City of Highland criteria within
the current study area and a larger survey area. The survey also identified scattered
occurrence of scalebroom within the site and a survey for full documentation of all locations and
eradication prior to development was recommended.
The 2006 jurisdictional delineation and 2015 reevaluation found that there is presently no flow
from the site and no jurisdictional features are present following the installation of flood control
improvements on adjacent and upstream land to the east. As a result, all three (3) USGS
mapped ephemeral blueline drainages that historically crossed the site have been cut-off from
their upstream sources and no longer transmit water onto the study area.
In 2011 two (2) special status wildlife species (loggerhead shrike and black-tailed jackrabbit,
neither of which is listed by state or federal agencies) were observed onsite. No special status
plant species were identified onsite.
Natural Resources Assessment, Inc. (NRAI) was contracted by L&L to conduct focused surveys
for San Bernardino kangaroo rat (SBKR) in 2005 and 2011. Both surveys identified SBKR on
adjacent habitat. The current study area and project design avoids all occupied trap lines.
In addition to SBKR, the following special status wildlife species were identified onsite during
trapping: northwestern San Diego pocket mouse (in both 2005 and 2011) and Los Angeles
pocket mouse in 2011. Density of SBKR occupying the area are considered to be “trace to low”
and potentially occupied habitat as designated by NRAI in 2011 is primarily east of the current
survey area, along and surrounding the loose sand of remnant drainages (NRAI 2011). The
San Diego and Los Angeles pocket mouse species identified onsite are not listed by state or
federal agencies, but are considered “California species of concern”.
4.2) Vegetation Series
Site conditions remained essentially unchanged from the 2014 survey. Approximately half of
the subject property (estimated at 48%) can be characterized as relatively undisturbed alluvial
fan sage scrub inhabited by a mixture of non-native and mostly native plants (Figure 5). Areas
within the western half of the site are more disturbed in association with past and ongoing
human activities, such as cultivation of Eucalyptus and jojoba and the presence of several
structures (now removed, but with remnant foundations). Other disturbances observed on the
western portion of the site include introduction of invasive non-native plant species, previously
cleared and/or recently disked areas, debris piling, and pedestrian and ORV activity. Based on
the results of this study, most of the site probably supports a diverse group of native low-
growing annuals and other herbs away from these disturbances. Vegetative cover ranges from
approximately 0 to 99 percent, depending on location within the site.
Table 2. Habitat Onsite
Habitat Acres
Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub 18.4
Active Agricultural (jojoba) 5.1
Eucalyptus Groves 5.6
Disturbed/Non-Native Semi-natural Stands/ Ornamental 9.4
Total 38.5
4.2.1) Eriogonum fasciculatum – (Lepidospartum squamatum) alluvial fan (32.070.01),
Artemisia californica – Lepidospartum squamatum (32.010.09) Alliances; Previously Identified
as Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub (Holland Element Code 32720)
Alluvial fan sage scrub (AFSS) contains mostly drought-deciduous shrubs with soft leaves and
occurs in association with washes and gently sloping alluvial fans. Areas containing AFSS are
usually subject to periodic flooding and mature phases of this vegetation community can contain
significant cover of larger perennials. Scalebroom (Lepidospartum squamatum) is typically an
indicator plant species of this vegetation community and is present (uncommonly) within alluvial
scrub areas of the site in association with other large plants, including California buckwheat
(Eriogonum fasciculatum var. foliolosum), California sagebrush (Artemesia californica), yerba
santa (Eriodictyon sp.), and chaparral yucca (Yucca whipplei). Other larger shrubs less
commonly observed within these areas include chamise (Adenostoma fasciculatum), spiny
redberry (Rhamnus crocea), holly-leaved cherry (Prunus illicifolia), blue elderberry (Sambucus
mexicana), and sugar bush (Rhus ovata). This vegetation community is present throughout the
east half of the current study area away from disturbances within the western portion of the site.
Alluvial fan sage scrub is state listed “very threatened” sensitive habitat.
Other shrubs, such as white sage (Salvia apiana), brittlebush (Encelia farinosa), sweetbush
(Bebbia juncea), coast cholla (Opuntia parryi), interior bush lupine (Lupinus excubitus), sand
washed butterweed (Senecio flaccidus), Thurber’s buckwheat (Eriogonum thurberi), jimsonweed
(Datura wrightii), chia (Salvia columbariae), California croton (Croton californicus), and
telegraph weed (Heterotheca grandiflora), are present. Small patches of tamarisk (Tamarix sp.)
were observed on portions of the site within historic drainage areas.
Native plants commonly found within this community on the subject property include (but are not
limited to) deerweed (Lotus scoparius), phacelia (Phacelia sp.), morning glory (Calystegia
macrostegia), lanceleaf dudleya (Dudleya lanceolata), wild hyacinth (Dichelostemma
capitatum), and horseweed (Conyza canadensis). Less disturbed areas (especially in areas
containing a cryptobiotic surface crust or in areas away from dense non-native grass cover)
were inhabited with dot-seed plantain (Plantago erecta), sun cups (Cammisonia sp.), purple
clarkia (Clarkia purpurea), forget me not (Cryptantha sp.), popcorn flower (Plagiobothrys sp.),
purple nightshade (Solanum xanti), yellow pincushion (Chaenactis glabruiscula), sapphire
woolstar (Eriastrum sapphirinum), silver puffs (Uropappus lindleyi), and other low-growing
herbs. Fiddleneck (Amsinckia menziesii var. intermedia) was observed sporadically throughout
disturbed and undisturbed portions of the site.
4.2.2) Juniperus californica – Eriogonum fasciculatum – Artemisia californica Alliance
(89.100.00); Previously Identified as Peninsular (Cismontane) Juniper Woodland and Scrub
(Holland Element Code 72400)
This plant community is characterized by the presence of California juniper (Juniperus
californica) within cismontane sage scrub areas. Peninsular juniper woodland and scrub (PJW)
is typically found above 2,500 feet AMSL. This community is most often associated with the
eastern slopes of the peninsular ranges and is found in association with other desert edge
plants, including pinyon pine (Pinus monophylla and/or P. quadrifolia), chamise, yucca (Yucca
sp.), and ceanothus (Ceanothus sp.) However, PJW has been documented to occur in other
low-lying areas of southwestern San Bernardino County and western Riverside County.
On the subject property, PJW occurs in low-density patches and is found in association with
undisturbed portions of the site, mostly within relatively undisturbed AFSS vegetated areas.
Many herbaceous annuals are also present.
4.2.3) Eucalyptus (globulus, camaldulensis) (Eucalyptus groves) Semi-natural Stands
(79.100.00); Previously Identified as Non-Native Eucalyptus Woodland (Holland Element Code
11300 or 11000)
Eucalyptus trees, native to Australia, are commonly found in southern California and have been
widely utilized as shade trees in the area since the 1850s. Two (2) separate Eucalyptus groves
are present within the northwestern corner of the subject property. A diverse shrub understory
is not present at this location. Mostly weedy low-growing annuals and grasses were observed
in association with these groves. During a previous assessment (in June 2005) the trees were
being watered by drip irrigation and appeared healthy overall. Surveys since 2006 appear to
indicate the trees are no longer irrigated and are declining in health.
4.2.4) Disturbed / Bromus rubens (42.024.01) / Bromus diandrus – Avena spp. (42.026.22)
Semi-natural Stands; Previously Identified as Ruderal Habitat (Holland Element Code 11300)
Disturbed habitat includes areas that contain mostly non-native plant species, including
ornamentals and ruderal exotics. Disturbed areas within the western portion of the site that are
not currently inhabited by Eucalyptus, jojoba, or other ornamental plants are now largely ruderal.
Mostly non-native weedy species have invaded these areas, including short-pod mustard
(Hirschfeldia incana), red-stemmed filaree (Erodium cicutarium), long-beaked storksbill
(Erodium botrys), tumble pigweed (Amaranthus albus), prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola), and
Russian thistle (Salsola tragus). Very dense non-native grasses, including red brome (Bromus
madritensis ssp. rubens), ripgut (Bromus diandrus), cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), fescue
(Vulpia sp.), and oats (Avena sp.), were observed in disturbed and undisturbed areas choking
out low-growing plant species.
Other plant species less commonly observed within disturbed areas of the subject property
include calabazilla (Cucurbita foetidissima), tocalote (Centaurea melitensis), annual bur weed
(Ambrosia acanthicarpa), puncture vine (Tribulus terrestris), vinegar weed (Trichostemma
lanceolatum), and cheeseweed (Malva parviflora).
4.2.5) Ornamental (Holland Element Code None or 11000)
Remnants of non-native ornamental landscaping are present within the southwestern portion of
the site in association with remaining signs of residences along Abbey Way. Trees such as
gum tree, pine (Pinus sp.), Peruvian pepper tree (Schinus molle), and olive (Olea europea) were
observed. A single Fremont’s cottonwood (Populus fremontii) is also present. A single
Peruvian pepper tree was also identified within the southeastern portion of the site and is
surrounded by native peninsular juniper woodland.
4.2.6) Agriculture (Holland Element Code 18300)
Several rows of cultivated jojoba (Simmondsia chinensis) plants are present within the
southwestern portion of the site, south of the Eucalyptus groves.
4.3) Plant Species
Annual plant growth remained low in 2015. A total of 106 plant species were commonly
observed during the 2015 general biological and botanical investigations in the current survey
area (Table 3, Appendix A). Data from previous reports that include information from both the
current survey area and the general area in 2005, 2011, and 2014 list a total of 128 species
observed. A list of all species reported in past L&L surveys is included in Table 4 (Appendix A).
Table 5 (Appendix A) includes all sensitive species identified in the CNDDB (2015) occurring
within the project quadrangle or eight adjacent quadrangles. The table details the species
habitats, range, and sensitivity rating and L&L’s probability determination for the species
occurring in the survey area.
No special status plant species were identified during past or current surveys conducted by L&L
onsite. Three (3) sensitive species were identified as having moderate potential to occur onsite
within the native habitat: Parry’s spineflower (Chorizanthe parryi var. parryi), Mesa horkelia
(Horkelia cuneata ssp puberula), and Robinson’s pepper grass (Lepidium virginicum var.
robinsonii). Due to the presence of suitable habitat, consecutive seasons of drought, and close
proximity of recorded locations potential for these species to occur could not be ruled out.
Impacts to these species is generally not regulated.
4.3.1) Heritage Trees
The City of Highland regulates impacts to trees that qualify as “heritage trees”. A heritage tree
count and survey was conducted by L&L in 2006 and identified 114 trees meeting the City of
Highland criteria within the larger survey area. Approximately 50 qualifying trees were present
within the current survey area in 2006, the majority of which were California juniper or western
sycamore (Platanus racemosa). Other species present include blue elderberry, holly-leaved
cherry, sugar bush, Eucalyptus, tamarisk, tobacco tree (Nicotiana glauca), pine sp., olive, and
Peruvian pepper.
4.4) Wildlife Species
A total of 31 wildlife species were observed during the 2015 general biological and botanical
investigations in the current survey area (Table 3, Appendix A). Data from previous reports that
include data from both the current survey area and the general area in 2005, 2011, and 2014 list
a total of 46 wildlife species observed. A list of all bird, mammal, and reptile species reported in
past L&L surveys is included in Table 4. Table 5 (Appendix A) includes all sensitive species
identified in the CNDDB (2015) in the area and details the species habitats, range, and
sensitivity rating and L&L’s probability determination for the species occurring in the survey
area.
4.4.1) Invertebrates
No habitat suitable for use by the federally listed endangered Delhi sands flower-loving fly
(Raphiomidas terminatus abdominalis) or Riverside fairy shrimp (Streptocephalus woottoni) was
identified onsite during past or present surveys. One (1) sensitive species, Crotch bumble bee
(Bombus crotchii), was determined to have moderate potential of occurring in the survey area
based on habitat suitability and range. Impacts to this species are generally not regulated.
4.4.2) Amphibians and Reptiles
Two (2) reptile species were observed during the current survey effort. Coastal whiptail
(Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri) is considered a sensitive species (Figure 6). Two (2) additional
common reptile species were observed during investigations of the current survey area and in
the general area in 2005, 2011, and 2014. No threatened or endangered species were
observed or were determined to have high or moderate potential to occur in the survey area.
No sensitive species were observed. Four (4) sensitive species were determined to have high
or moderate potential to occur in the survey area: California silvery legless lizard (Anniella
pulchra pulchra), orange-throated whiptail (Aspidoscelis hyperythra), northern red-diamond
rattlesnake (Crotalus ruber), and San Bernardino ringneck snake (Diadophis punctatus ssp.
modestus). Impacts to these species are generally not regulated.
4.4.3) Birds
A total of 27 bird species were observed or detected by vocalizations during the current survey
effort, none of which were sensitive species. 37 bird species were observed or detected by
vocalizations during investigations of the current survey area and in the general area in 2005,
2011, and 2014. No threatened or endangered species were observed or determined to have
high or moderate potential to occur in the survey area. Three (3) sensitive species were
observed during previous surveys within the current study area: Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter
cooperii), loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), and Lawrence’s goldfinch (Spinus
lawrencei). Three (3) other sensitive species have high or moderate potential to occur in the
survey area: southern California rufous-crowned sparrow (Aimophila ruficeps canescens), Bell’s
sage sparrow (Artemisiospiza belli belli), and California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris actia).
Impacts to these species are generally not regulated, with the exception of active nests.
Western Burrowing Owl
Based upon presence of relatively flat open areas with low-growing vegetation on portions of the
site, close proximity to a fresh water source, and recent records of BUOW in other areas of
southwestern San Bernardino County and western Riverside County, vegetative habitat suitable
for use by BUOW was determined to be present on portions of the subject property. Focused
BUOW surveys were conducted onsite and in surrounding buffer areas by L&L personnel in
2005 with negative results.
Greenspot Rd.
Gold Buckle Rd.
Abb ey Way
Project Area
Cooper’s Hawk observation (2005)
Black-tailed Jackrabbit (2011 & 2014)
Loggerhead Shrike (2011)
Coastal W hiptail (2015)
No BUOW, occupied burrows, or burrowing owl sign (pellets, scat, feathers, tracks, etc.) were
observed on the subject property during the current general biological study of the site. Based
on results of earlier focused studies (2005) and the results of the 2011, 2014, and current 2015
general biological surveys, it can be reasonably concluded that BUOW is not presently utilizing
the subject property.
Nesting Birds
Potential habitat for raptor and migratory bird nest sites exists within alluvial fan sage scrub,
sycamore trees, California juniper, and other tree species onsite. Specific nests and total
numbers were not search for or identified during the present surveys. Suitable foraging habitat
is present for numerous species onsite.
4.4.4) Mammals
Two (2) mammal species were observed during the current survey effort, neither of which are
sensitive species. Five (5) mammal species were observed during L&L investigations of the
current survey area and the general area in 2005, 2011, and 2014, including San Diego black-
tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus bennettii), a sensitive species. No threatened or
endangered species were observed onsite within the current study area; however, one (1)
federally listed endangered species, San Bernardino kangaroo rat (Dipodomys merriami parvus)
(SBKR), is known to be in the area based on a 2011 SBKR trapping study. Two (2) additional
sensitive species were observed onsite during the trapping studies: northwestern San Diego
pocket mouse (Chaetodipus fallax fallax) and L. A. pocket mouse (Perognathus longimembris
brevinasus). One (1) other sensitive species has high or moderate potential to occur in the
survey area, San Diego desert wood rat (Neotoma lepida intermedia). Impacts to these
species, with the exception of San Bernardino kangaroo rat, are generally not regulated.
San Bernardino kangaroo rat
A San Bernardino kangaroo rat (SBKR) trapping study was conducted in 2005 and again in
2011 by Natural Resources Assessment, Inc. for L&L Environmental, Inc. onsite and over a
larger area. Habitat quality is considered to be low due to density of vegetation cover; however,
the site is located within U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service designated critical habitat for the
species.
Two (2) trapping studies conducted over the site and a larger area in 2005 and 2011 found the
adjacent habitat to the east to be occupied by SBKR. Traps onsite did not contain SBKR.
The NRSI trapping program included six (6) trap lines in 2005 and eight (8) in 2011 across a
larger area. Three (3) of the trap lines from 2005 and five (5) from 2011 fall within the physical
boundary of the subject map and current study area. Trap line locations were based on habitat,
topography, and soils.
SBKR were not trapped within the current study area during either study; however, occupied
trap lines are present within adjacent habitat to the east. The current map design avoids known
locations of SBKR based on the trapping studies; however, accurate densities can only be
determined through a grid trapping mark/recapture program, which was not conducted.
5.0) IMPACT S AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The purpose of this study was to update existing data for the project site with current conditions
and/or changes in biological resources on the subject property. The effects and
recommendations identified are based on the literature review (including previous L&L surveys),
L&L’s biological knowledge of species and habitats in the site vicinity, and the biological field
survey. The information in this section is intended to serve as a planning tool for making
decisions about future development of the project site.
One (1) special status species (coastal whiptail) was observed onsite during the current
surveys. Previous L&L surveys in 2005, 2011, and 2014 identified four (4) other special status
species (Cooper’s hawk, Lawrence’s goldfinch, loggerhead shrike, and San Diego black-tailed
jackrabbit) either onsite or immediately adjacent to the current study area. No special status
botanical species were observed during current or previous surveys. All of the observed
sensitive species are California Species of Concern (with no federal or state listing) and are not
generally regulated as individual species; however, all of the bird species are protected by the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (no federal or state listing), which is intended to prevent impacts to
active nests.
Habitat suitable for raptor and migratory bird nesting is present within and around the site.
Presence of this potential habitat is the basis for recommendation of a preconstruction survey
(valid for 30 days) for nesting birds (raptors in particular) prior to any site disturbance during the
nesting season (February 1 through August 31). If nesting raptors or migratory birds are
present avoidance of nesting trees will be required and a buffer determined by the project
biologist is recommended until juvenile birds have fledged and/or an authorized biologist has
verified that the nest has become inactive.
Based on the results of surveys this year (and those of previous years), it can be reasonably
concluded that burrowing owl is not currently occupying any portion of the site. Although no
BUOW or sign has been observed on the subject property during several biological surveys of
the site, a 30-day preconstruction clearance survey should be conducted prior to site clearing
and disturbance. This is based upon presence of suitable vegetative habitat for BUOW ,
California ground squirrel activity, and other information presented in this and previous
biological reports for the property.
Suitable critical habitat to support SBKR is present onsite and in the general area. Trapping
studies conducted onsite and over a larger study area in 2005 and 2011 did not find SBKR
present within the current study area/planned impact area. SBKR occupied critical habitat is
present adjacent to the project area (to the east), based on 2005 and 2011 SBKR trapping
studies of the general area.
The proponent has planned the project to avoid known occupied habitat based on the occupied
trap lines of two (2) trapping studies. The plan was designed to avoid all of the occupied SBKR
trap locations, 71% of potentially occupied habitat as designated by NRAI in 2011 and more
than 50% of the alluvial fan sage scrub/critical habitat within the full survey area. Consultation
with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and mitigation measures will be required prior to any
habitat disturbance on the site.
Other sensitive species trapped during SBKR studies included northwestern San Diego pocket
mouse and Los Angeles pocket mouse. Impacts to these species are generally not regulated.
The 2006 jurisdictional delineation identified one (1) jurisdictional feature onsite; however, the
2015 reevaluation found that the site is cut off from upstream drainages by the placement of a
flood control structure. The site no longer receives water from the immediate east. No
jurisdictional features are currently present on the property. No evidence of flow due to runoff of
precipitation was found onsite.
A 2006 heritage tree survey identified 50 heritage trees within the current study area. If impacts
to this site are proposed the survey should be updated and consultation with the City of
Highlands initiated to determine any required mitigation and minimization measures.
Scalebroom is present within portions of the drainages onsite. This plant is a persistent species
capable of lifting concrete improvements placed above graded areas containing remnants of the
plant. W e recommend both a focused survey for the location of the plant on the property and
eradication of the plant from any areas planned for development prior to soil disturbance.
6.0) REFERENCES
Abrams, L. 1923-1951. Illustrated Flora of the Pacific States, Volumes I-III. Stanford University
Press, Stanford, California.
Abrams, L. and R. Ferris. 1960. Illustrated Flora of the Pacific States, Volume IV. Stanford
University Press, Stanford, California.
Arnett, Ross H. Jr. 2000. American Insects: A Handbook of the Insects of America North of
Mexico. CRC Press, New York, New York. 1003 pp.
Arroyo-Cabrales, J., B. Miller, F. Reid, A. D. Cuarón, and P. C. de Grammont. 2008.
Leptonycteris yerbabuenae. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2008:
e.T136659A4324321.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2008.RLTS.T136659A4324321.en . Downloaded on
18 November 2015.
Brown, David E. 1994. Biotic Communities: Southwestern United States and Mexico.
University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, Utah. 342 pp.
California Department of Fish and Game. 2015. Natural Diversity Database.
CNPS Inventory (6th Ed.) 2001. CNPS Botanical Survey Guidelines.
http://www.cnps.org/cnps/archive/CNPSGuidelines_6-2-01.pdf
County of Riverside Environmental Programs Department. 2006. Burrowing Owl Survey
Instructions for the W estern Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Area,
March 29, 2006.
Hatfield, R., S. Jepsen, R. Thorp, L. Richardson, and S. Colla. 2015. Bombus crotchii. The
IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015: e.T44937582A46440211.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-2.RLTS.T44937582A46440211.en .
Downloaded on 18 November 2015.
Hatfield, R., S. Jepsen, R. Thorp, L. Richardson, and S. Colla. 2014. Bombus morrisoni. The
IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2014: e.T44937666A69004519.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2014-3.RLTS.T44937666A69004519.en .
Downloaded on 18 November 2015.
Hickman, J. (editor). 1993. The Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of California. University of
California Press, Berkeley, California.
Jameson, E. W. and H. J. Peeters. 1988. California Mammals. University of California Press,
Berkeley.
L&L Environmental, Inc. 2005. Focused Nesting Season Burrowing Owl and Raptor Nest
Survey Report for the Heather Glen Project, San Bernardino County, California.
L&L Environmental, Inc. 2006a. Heritage Tree Count and Survey for the Heather Glen Site,
City of Highland, County of San Bernardino, California.
L&L Environmental, Inc. 2006b. Jurisdictional Delineation for the Heather Glen Site, City of
Highland, County of San Bernardino, California.
L&L Environmental, Inc. 2011. General Biological and Spring Botanical Surveys for the
Greenspot Partners Site, City of Highland, County of San Bernardino, California.
L&L Environmental, Inc. 2015a. Updated Jurisdictional Delineation for APNs 1210-281-01, -02,
-03, & -04, City of Highland, County of San Bernardino, California.
L&L Environmental, Inc. 2015b. Updated General Biological and Spring Botanical Surveys for
the Greenspot Partners Site East, City of Highland, County of San Bernardino, CA.
L&L Environmental, Inc. 2015c. Updated General Biological and Spring Botanical Surveys for
the Greenspot Partners Site West, City of Highland, County of San Bernardino, CA.
Linzey, A. V. and NatureServe (Hammerson, G.). 2008. Perognathus alticolus. The IUCN Red
List of Threatened Species 2008: e.T16631A6198091.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2008.RLTS.T16631A6198091.en. Downloaded on 18
November 2015.
Munz, Philip A. 1974. A Flora of Southern California. University of California Press, Berkeley,
California.
Natural Resources Assessment, Inc. 2005. San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat (Dipodomys
merriami parvus) Presence/Absence Trapping Studies North American Residential
Communities Highland, California.
Natural Resources Assessment, Inc. 2011. San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat (Dipodomys
merriami parvus) Presence/Absence Trapping Studies Residential Development Project
Highland, California.
Parker, Robert et al. 1999. Weeds of the West. The Western Society of W eed Science.
Newark, California. 630 pp.
Quesada, V. and A. Chambers. 2006. "Tamias speciosus" (On-line), Animal Diversity Web.
Accessed November 17, 2015 at http://animaldiversity.org/accounts/Tamias_speciosus/
Recon. 1985. The Distribution, Status, and Conservation of Vernal Pool and Alkali Playa
Wetlands of the Upper Salt Creek Drainage, Hemet, California.
Sawyer, John O. and Todd Keeler-W olf. 1995. A Manual of California Vegetation. California
Native Plant Society, Sacramento, California. 471 pp.
Schoenherr, Allan A (editor). 1990. Endangered Plant Communities of Southern California.
Southern California Botanists, Claremont, California. 114 pp.
Sibley, David Allen. 2000. The Sibley Guide to Birds. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., New York, New
York. 545 pp.
Small, Arnold. 1994. California Birds: Their Status and Distribution. Ibis Publishing Company,
Vista, California. 342 pp.
Stebbins, R. C. 1985. Western Reptiles and Amphibians. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston
Mass.
U. S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Endangered and threatened
wildlife and plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat
(Dipodomys merriami parvus). Federal Register 73, No. 202: pp.61936-62002 (Oct 17,
2008).
U. S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Endangered and threatened
wildlife and plants; review of plant and animal taxa that are candidates or proposed for
listing as endangered or threatened species. Federal Register 64: 57534-57547 (Oct
25)
U. S. Department of the Interior Geological Survey. 1988. Redlands California 7.5-Minute
topographic map. USGS, Denver, Colorado.
APPENDIX A
Table 3. List of plant (N=106) and wildlife (N=31) species observed/identified on the Greenspot
Partners West site by L&L during the current 2015 survey effort. Plants were identified using
keys, descriptions, and illustrations in Abrams (1923-1960), Hickman (1993), Munz (1974), and
Parker (1999). Plant taxonomy and nomenclature generally follows Hickman. A single asterisk
(*) indicates non-native plant taxa. Two asterisk (**) indicate a special status species.
Scientific Name Common Name
Plants (N=106)
Amaranthaceae Pigweed Family
Amaranthus albus Tumble Pigweed
An acardiaceae Sumac Family
Rhus ovata Sugar Bush
Schinus molle Peruvian Pepper*
Arecaceae Palm Family
Washingtonia robusta Mexican Fan Palm*
Asteraceae Sunflower Family
Ambrosia acanthicarpa Annual Bur-Sage
Artemesia californica California Sagebrush
Baccharis salicifolia Mulefat
Bebbia juncea Sweetbush
Carduus pychnocephalus Italian Thistle*
Centaurea melitensis Tocalote*
Chaenactis artemisiifolia White Pincushion
Chaenactis glabriuscula Yellow Pincushion
Chamomilla sauveolens Pineapple Weed*
Conyza boniarensis Flax-leaved Fleabane
Conyza canadensis Horseweed
Deinandra species Unidentified Tarweed
Encelia farinosa Brittlebush
Ericameria species Goldenbush
Erigeron foliosus Fleabane Aster
Filago californica California Filago
Gnaphalium luteo-album Everlasting Cudweed
Gutierrezia species Matchweed
Helianthus annuus Annual Sunflower
Heterotheca grandiflora Telegraph Weed
Lactuca serriola Prickly-lettuce*
Lasthenia californica Goldfields
Senecio flaccidus Sand W ashed Butterweed
Senecio vulgaris Common Groundsel*
Sonchus oleraceus Sow-thistle*
Stephanomeria virgata Twiggy Wreath Plant
Uropappus lindleyi Silver Puffs
Scientific Name Common Name
Plants (continued)
Boraginaceae Borage Family
Amsinckia menziesii var. intermedia Fiddleneck
Cryptantha sp. Unidentified Forget-Me-Not
Pectocarya linearis Slender Pectocarya
Plagiobothrys sp. Popcorn Flower
Brassicaceae Mustard Family
Hirschfeldia incana Short-pod Mustard*
Raphinus sativus Wild Radish*
Sisymbrium irio London Rocket*
Cactaceae Cactus Family
Opuntia parryi Valley Cholla
Opuntia sp. Beavertail Cactus
Caprifoliaceae Honeysuckle Family
Sambucus mexicana Blue Elderberry
Chenopodiaceae Goosefoot Family
Salsola tragus Russian Thistle
Chenopodium album Lamb’s Quarters*
Convolvulaceae Mourning-Glory Family
Calystegia macrostegia Morning Glory
Crassulaceae Stonecrop Family
Crassula connata Pygmy Stonecrop
Cucurbitaceae Gourd Family
Cucurbita foetidissima Calabazilla
Marah macrocarpus Wild-cucumber
Cupressaceae Cypress Family
Juniperus californica California Juniper
Euphorbiaceae Spurge Family
Chamaesyce albomarginata Rattlesnake Weed
Croton californicus California Croton
Euphorbia sp. Ground Spurge*
Fabaceae Pea Family
Albizia lophantha Plume Acacia*
Lotus scoparius Deerweed
Lotus species Unidentified Lotus
Lupinus bicolor Dove Lupine
Lupinus excubitus Interior Bush Lupine
Medicago polymorpha Burclover*
Melilotus alba White Sweetclover*
Scientific Name Common Name
Plants (continued)
Geraniaceae Geranium Family
Erodium cicutarium Red-stemmed Filaree*
Erodium botrys Long-beaked Storksbill*
Hydrophyllaceae Waterleaf Family
Eriodictyon sp. (crassifolium?) Yerba Santa
Phacelia sp. (distans?) Distant Phacelia
Lamiaceae Mint Family
Salvia apiana White Sage
Salvia columbariae Chia
Trichostemma lanceolatum Vinegar W eed
Liliaceae Lily Family
Dichelostemma capitatum Wild Hyacinth
Yucca whipplei Chaparral Yucca
Lythraceae Loosestrife Family
Lagerstroemia sp. Crepe Myrtle*
Malvaceae Mallow Family
Malva parviflora Cheeseweed*
Myrtaceae Myrtle Family
Eucalyptus sp. Gum Tree*
Oleaceae Olive Family
Fraxinus sp. Ash*
Olea europea Olive*
Onagraceae Evening Primrose Family
Cammisonia californica Mustard Evening Primrose
Cammisonia sp. Evening Primrose or Sun Cups
Plantaginaceae Plantain Family
Plantago erecta Dot-seed Plantain
Plantanaceae Sycamore Family
Platanus racemosa Western Sycamore
Pinaceae Pine Family
Pinus sp. Pine*
Poaceae Grass Family
Avena barbata Slender Wild Oat*
Avena sp. Oat*
Bromus diandrus Ripgut Brome*
Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens Foxtail Chess*
Bromus tectorum Cheatgrass*
Scientific Name Common Name
Plants (continued)
Poaceae (continued) Grass Family
Cynodon dactylon Bermuda Grass*
Digitaria sanguinalis Large Crabgrass*
Lamarckia aurea Goldentop*
Schismus barbatus Mediterranean Grass
Vulpia sp. Fescue*
Polemoniaceae Phlox Family
Eriastrum sapphirinum Sapphire W oolstar
Polygonaceae Buckwheat Family
Eriogonum fasciculatum var. foliolosum California Buckwheat
Eriogonum sp. Unidentified Buckwheat
Eriogonum thurberi Thurber’s Buckwheat
Polygonum aviculare Knotweed*
Primulaaceae Primrose Family
Anagallis arvensis Scarlet Pimpernel*
Rhamnaceae Buckthorn Family
Rhamnus crocea Spiny Redberry
Rosaceae Rose Family
Adenostoma fasciculatum Chamise
Heteromeles arbutifolia Toyon
Prunus illicifolia Holly-leaved Cherry
Salicaceae Willow Family
Populus fremontii Western Cottonwood
Simaroubaceae Ailanthus Family
Ailanthus altissima Tree of Heaven*
Simmondsiaceae Jojoba Family
Simmondsia chinensis Jojoba*
Solanaceae Nightshade Family
Datura wrightii Western Jimsonweed
Nicotiana glauca Tobacco Tree*
Solanum xanti Purple Nightshade
Tamaricaceae Tamarisk Family
Tamarix sp. Tamarisk*
Viscaceae Mistletoe Family
Phorodendron sp. Unidentified Mistletoe (Juniper)
Zygophyllaceae Caltrop Family
Tribulus terrestris Puncture Vine*
Scientific Name Common Name
Birds (N=27)
Acciptiridae Hawk Family
Buteo jamaicensis Red-tail Hawk
Aegithalidae Long-tailed Tit Family
Psaltriparus minimus Bushtit
Bombycillidae Waxwing Family
Phainopepla nitens Phainopepla
Cardinalidae Cardinal Family
Pheuclicus melanocephalus Black-headed Grosbeak
Charadriidae Plover Family
Charadrius vociferus Killdeer
Columbidae Pigeon Family
Zenaida macroura Mourning Dove
Corvidae Jay and Crow Family
Aphelocoma californica Western Scrub Jay
Corvus brachyrhynchos American Crow
Corvus corax clarionensis Common Raven
Emberizidae Emberizine Sparrow Family
Melospiza melodia Song Sparrow
Pipilo crissalis California Towhee
Pipilo maculatus Spotted Towhee
Falconidae Falcon Family
Falco sparverius American Kestrel
Icteridae Icterid Family
Euphagus cyanocephalus Brewer’s Blackbird
Fringillidae Finch Family
Carduelis psaltria Lesser Goldf inch
Carpodacus mexicanus House Finch
Mimidae Mockingbird Family
Mimus polyglottos polyglottos Northern Mockingbird
Odontophoridae Quail Family
Callipepla californica californica California Quail
Picidae Woodpecker Family
Colaptes auratus Northern Flicker
Sturnidae Starling Family
Sturnus vulgaris European Starling
Scientific Name Common Name
Birds (continued)
Trochilideae Hummingbird Family
Calypte anna Anna’s Hummingbird
Calypte costae Costa’s Hummingbird
Troglodytidae Wren Family
Thryomanes bewickii Bewick’s Wren
Turdidae Thrush Family
Sialia currucoides Mountain Bluebird
Tyrannidae Tyrant Flycatchers
Sayornis nigricans Black Phoebe
Sayornis saya Say’s Phoebe
Tyrannus verticalis Western Kingbird
Mammals (N=2)
Leporidae Rabbit Family
Sylvilagus audubonii Desert Cottontail
Sciuridae Squirrel Family
Spermophilus beecheyi California Ground Squirrel
Reptiles & Amphibians (N=2)
Iguanidae Iguanid Family
Uta stansburiana Side-blotched Lizard
Teiidae Teiid Lizard Family
Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri Coastal W hiptail**
* Excludes invertebrates
Table 4. List of plant (N=128) and wildlife (N=46) species identified on the full Greenspot
Partners site. This list includes plant species detected during previous studies on the site by
L&L in 2005, 2006, 2011 & 2014. Not all plants included on this list were observed during the
present study due to season. Plants were identified using keys, descriptions, and illustrations in
Abrams (1923-1960), Hickman (1993), Munz (1974), and Parker (1999). Plant taxonomy and
nomenclature generally follows Hickman. A single asterisk (*) indicates non-native plant taxa.
Scientific Name Common Name
Plants (N=128)
Amaranthaceae Pigweed Family
Amaranthus albus Tumble Pigweed
An acardiaceae Sumac Family
Rhus ovata Sugar Bush
Schinus molle Peruvian Pepper*
Schinus teribenthifolius Brazilian Pepper*
Asteraceae Sunflower Family
Ambrosia acanthicarpa Annual Bur-Sage
Ambrosia psilostachya Western Ragweed
Artemesia californica California Sagebrush
Baccharis salicifolia Mulefat
Bebbia juncea Sweetbush
Carduus pychnocephalus Italian Thistle*
Centaurea melitensis Tocalote*
Chaenactis glabriuscula Yellow Pincushion
Chamomilla sauveolens Pineapple Weed*
Cirsium sp. Thistle
Conyza boniarensis Flax-leaved Fleabane
Conyza canadensis Horseweed
Deinandra fasciculata Slender Tarweed
Encelia farinosa Brittlebush
Ericameria sp. Goldenbush
Erigeron foliosus Fleabane Aster
Filago californica California Filago
Gazinia sp. Gazinia*
Gnaphalium luteo-album Everlasting Cudweed
Gutierrezia sp. Matchweed
Helianthus annuus Annual Sunflower
Heterotheca grandiflora Telegraph W eed
Lactuca serriola Prickly-lettuce*
Lasthenia californica Goldfields
Lepidospartum squamatum Scalebroom
Senecio flaccidus Sand W ashed Butterweed
Senecio vulgaris Common Groundsel*
Sonchus oleraceus Sow-thistle*
Sonchus asper Prickly Sow-thistle*
Stephanomeria virgata Twiggy Wreath Plant
Uropappus lindleyi Silver Puffs
Xanthium strumarium Cocklebur
Scientific Name Common Name
Plants (continued)
Boraginaceae Borage Family
Amsinckia menziesii var. intermedia Fiddleneck
Cryptantha sp. Unidentified Forget-Me-Not
Heliotropium curassavicum Wild Heliotrope
Plagiobothrys sp. Popcorn Flower
Brassicaceae Mustard Family
Brassica nigra Black Mustard*
Hirschfeldia incana Short-pod Mustard*
Lobularia maritime Sweet Alyssum*
Raphinus sativus Wild Radish*
Sisymbrium altissimum Tumble Mustard*
Sisymbrium irio London Rocket*
Cactaceae Cactus Family
Opuntia parryi Valley Cholla
Opuntia sp. Beavertail Cactus
Caprifoliaceae Honeysuckle Family
Sambucus mexicana Blue Elderberry
Chenopodiaceae Goosefoot Family
Salsola tragus Russian Thistle
Chenopodium album Lamb’s Quarters*
Convolvulaceae Mourning-Glory Family
Calystegia macrostegia Morning Glory
Crassulaceae Stonecrop Family
Crassula sp. Unidentified Stonecrop
Dudleya lanceolata Lanceleaf Dudleya
Cucurbitaceae Gourd Family
Cucurbita foetidissima Calabazilla
Cucurbita palmata Coyote Gourd
Cupressaceae Cypress Family
Juniperus californica California Juniper
Cyperaceae Sedge Family
Cyperus eragostris Tall Umbrella Nutsedge
Euphorbiaceae Spurge Family
Chamaesyce albomarginata Rattlesnake Weed
Croton californicus California Croton
Eremocarpus setigerus Doveweed
Euphorbia sp. Ground Spurge*
Scientific Name Common Name
Plants (continued)
Fabaceae Pea Family
Lotus scoparius Deerweed
Lotus sp. Unidentified Lotus
Lupinus bicolor Dove Lupine
Lupinus excubitus Interior Bush Lupine
Medicago polymorpha Burclover*
Melilotus alba White Sweetclover*
Melilotus indica Sourclover*
Geraniaceae Geranium Family
Erodium cicutarium Red-stemmed Filaree*
Erodium botrys Long-beaked Storksbill*
Hydrophyllaceae Waterleaf Family
Eriodictyon sp. (crassifolium?) Yerba Santa
Phacelia sp. (distans?) Distant Phacelia
Lamiaceae Mint Family
Salvia apiana White Sage
Salvia columbariae Chia
Trichostemma lanceolatum Vinegar W eed
Liliaceae Lily Family
Dichelostemma capitatum Wild Hyacinth
Yucca whipplei Chaparral Yucca
Lythraceae Loosestrife Family
Lagerstroemia sp. Crepe Myrtle*
Malvaceae Mallow Family
Malva parviflora Cheeseweed*
Myrtaceae Myrtle Family
Eucalyptus sp. Gum Tree*
Oleaceae Olive Family
Olea europea Olive*
Onagraceae Evening Primrose Family
Cammisonia sp. Evening Primrose or Sun Cups
Clarkia purpurea Purple Clarkia
Oenothera elata ssp. hookeri Hooker’s Evening Primrose
Epilobium ciliatum var. ciliatum Green Willowherb
Oxalidacacae Oxalis Family
Oxalis corniculata Creeping W ood-sorrel*
Pinaceae Pine Family
Pinus sp. Pine*
Scientific Name Common Name
Plants (continued)
Plantaginaceae Plantain Family
Plantago erecta Dot-seed Plantain
Plantanaceae Sycamore Family
Platanus racemosa Western Sycamore
Poaceae Grass Family
Avena barbata. Slender Wild Oat*
Bromus diandrus Ripgut Brome*
Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens Foxtail Chess*
Bromus tectorum Cheatgrass*
Cynodon dactylon Bermuda Grass*
Digitaria sanguinalis Large Crabgrass*
Lamarckia aurea Goldentop*
Leptochloa univerva Spangletop*
Poa annua Annual Bluegrass*
Polypogon monspiliensis Rabbit’s Foot Grass
Schismus barbatus Mediterranean Grass
Vulpia sp. Fescue*
Polemoniaceae Phlox Family
Eriastrum sapphirinum Sapphire Woolstar
Polygonaceae Buckwheat Family
Eriogonum fasciculatum var. foliolosum California Buckwheat
Eriogonum sp. Unidentified Buckwheat
Eriogonum thurberi Thurber’s Buckwheat
Polygonum aviculare Knotweed*
Rumex crispus Curly Dock*
Portulacaceae Purslane Family
Portulaca oleracea Common Purslane*
Primulaaceae Primrose Family
Anagallis arvensis Scarlet Pimpernel*
Rhamnaceae Buckthorn Family
Ceanothus crassifolius Hoaryleaf Ceanothus
Rhamnus crocea Spiny Redberry
Rosaceae Rose Family
Adenostoma fasciculatum Chamise
Prunus illicifolia Holly-leaved Cherry
Salicaceae Willow Family
Populus fremontii Western Cottonwood
Salix sp. Willow
Scientific Name Common Name
Plants (continued)
Scrophulariaceae Figwort Family
Mimulus guttatus Seep Monkeyflower
Veronica anagallis-aquatica Water Speedwell*
Simmondsiaceae Jojoba Family
Simmondsia chinensis Jojoba*
Solanaceae Nightshade Family
Datura wrightii Western Jimsonweed
Nicotiana glauca Tobacco Tree*
Solanum xanti Purple Nightshade
Tamaricaceae Tamarisk Family
Tamarix sp. Tamarisk*
Typhaceae Cattail Family
Typha sp. Unidentified Cattail
Urticaceae Nettle Family
Urtica urens Dwarf Nettle*
Viscaceae Mistletoe Family
Phorodendron sp. Unidentified Mistletoe (Juniper)
Phorodendron sp. Unid. Mistletoe (Sycamore)
Zygophyllaceae Caltrop Family
Tribulus terrestris Puncture Vine*
Birds (N=37)
Acciptiridae Hawk Family
Accipiter cooperii Cooper’s Hawk
Buteo jamaicensis Red-tail Hawk
Aegithalidae Long-tailed Tit Family
Psaltriparus minimus Bushtit
Apodidae Swift Family
Aeronautes saxatalis White-Throated Swift
Ardeidae Heron Family
Ardea herodias wardi Great Blue Heron
Bombycillidae Waxwing Family
Phainopepla nitens Phainopepla
Cardinalidae Cardinal Family
Pheuclicus melanocephalus Black-headed Grosbeak
Scientific Name Common Name
Birds (continued)
Charadriidae Plover Family
Charadrius vociferus Killdeer
Columbidae Pigeon Family
Zenaida macroura Mourning Dove
Corvidae Jay and Crow Family
Aphelocoma californica Western Scrub Jay
Corvus brachyrhynchos American Crow
Corvus corax clarionensis Common Raven
Emberizidae Emberizine Sparrow Family
Pipilo crissalis California Towhee
Pipilo maculatus Spotted Towhee
Falconidae Falcon Family
Falco sparverius American Kestrel
Icteridae Icterid Family
Euphagus cyanocephalus Brewer’s Blackbird
Icterus bullockii Bullock’s Oriole
Fringillidae Finch Family
Carduelis lawrencei Lawrence’s Goldfinch
Carduelis psaltria Lesser Goldfinch
Carpodacus mexicanus House Finch
Laniidae Shrike Family
Lanius ludovicianus Loggerhead Shrike
Mimidae Mockingbird Family
Mimus polyglottos polyglottos Northern Mockingbird
Toxostoma redivivum redivivum California Thrasher
Odontophoridae Quail Family
Callipepla californica californica California Quail
Passeridae Old World Sparrow Family
Passer domesticus House Sparrow
Picidae Woodpecker Family
Colaptes auratus Northern Flicker
Picoides nuttallii Nuttall’s Woodpecker
Sturnidae Starling Family
Sturnus vulgaris European Starling
Trochilideae Hummingbird Family
Calypte anna Anna’s Hummingbird
Calypte costae Costa’s Hummingbird
Scientific Name Common Name
Birds (continued)
Troglodytidae Wren Family
Thryomanes bewickii Bewick’s Wren
Troglodytes aedon House Wren
Turdidae Thrush Family
Sialia mexicana Western Bluebird
Tyrannidae Tyrant Flycatchers
Myiarchus cinerascens Ash-throated Flycatcher
Sayornis nigricans Black Phoebe
Sayornis saya Say’s Phoebe
Tyrannus verticalis Western Kingbird
Mammals (N=5)
Canidae Dog, Fox & Coyote Family
Canis latrans Coyote
Canis domesticus Domestic Dog
Leporidae Rabbit Family
Lepus californicus Black-tailed Jackrabbit
Sylvilagus audubonii Desert Cottontail
Sciuridae Squirrel Family
Spermophilus beecheyi California Ground Squirrel
Reptiles & Amphibians (N=4)
Colubridae Colubrid Snake Family
Pituophis catenifer Gopher Snake
Iguanidae Iguanid Family
Sceloporus occidentalis Western Fence Lizard
Uta stansburiana Side-blotched Lizard
Teiidae Teiid Lizard Family
Cnemidophorus tigris Coastal W estern Whiptail
* Excludes invertebrates
Table 5: Sensitive Species Probability Table
Special Status Species Habitat and Distribution Flower
season
Status
Designation
Occurrence
Probability
PLANTS (n=50)
Ambrosia monogyra
Singlewhorl burrobrush
Chaparral and Sonoran desert scrub. Sandy soils
Washes and dry river beds. Elev. 32-1902 ft.
Aug -
Nov
Fed: None
Calif: S2
CNPS: List 2B.2
Low
Arenaria paludicola
Marsh sandwort
Mainly wetlands &freshwater marshes in a
Mediterranean climate, 0- 1476 feet. can grow in
saturated acidic bog soils and sandy soils with a
high organic content. Occur in WA as well as San
Fran, Santa Cruz, San Luis Obispo, and San Bern
Cos. in Cal.
May-
August
Fed: END
Ca: END
CNPS: List 1B.1
Absent
Astragalus hornii var. hornii
Horn’s milk-vetch
Sandy flats, Meadows and seeps, playas. Along
lake margins, alkali sites 60-850m.s. San Joaquin
Valley, South Coast, Western Transverse Ranges,
w. edge of the Mojave Desert
May -
Oct
Fed: None
Calif: S1
CNPS: List 1B.1
Absent
Atriplex coronata
var. notatior
San Jacinto Valley
crownscale
Alkali sink, saltbush scrub; endemic to Perris and
Elsinore Basin areas, Riverside Co.
May -
August
Fed: END
Calif: S 1
CNPS: List 1B.1
Absent
Atriplex serenana var.
davidsonii
Davidson's saltscale
Correct identification is uncertain; coastal bluff
scrub, coastal scrub on alkaline soils; Channel
Islands, coastal S Calif., also very uncommon in
San Jacinto Val near Lakeview (Riv. Co.).
April-
Oct
Fed: None
Calif: S1
CNPS: List 1B.2
Absent
Berberis nevinii
Nevin's barberry
Coastal sage scrub, chaparral, oak woodland,
riparian scrub on sandy or gravelly soils usually
below 2700 ft.; scattered localities in LA, San Bern,
Riv, and San Diego Cos.
Mar –
June
(can ID
all year)
Fed: END
Calif: END
CNPS: List 1B.1
Absent
Brodiaea filifolia
Thread-leaved brodiaea
Grassland, vernal pools /alkali sink in inland
valleys; on upland heavy clay soils nearer coast;
scattered in S Ca. foothills and valleys (LA Co to S
Bern. &San Diego Cos.), below ±2500 ft. el.
May -
June
Fed: THR
Calif: END
CNPS: List 1B.1
Absent
California macrophylla
Round-leaved filaree
Clay soils, open places in shrubland or grassland,
below about 3500 ft. elev.; Central Valley South to
N Mexico and east to Utah.
March-
May
Fed: None
Calif: S3?
CNPS: List 1B.2
USFS: S
Absent
Calochortus palmeri var.
palmeri
Palmer’s mariposa-lily
Usually in wetlands, in meadows, chaparral,
riparian and pine forest. Elevational range 1000-
2390 m In the San Jacinto Mts., Tehachapi Mt,
Transvers Ranges,
April -
July
Fed: None
Calif: S3?
CNPS: List 1B.2
USFS: S
Absent
(elev.range)
Calochortus plummerae
Plummer's mariposa-lily
Chaparral, coastal scrub, pine forest, valley, foothill
grassland, 100-1700m el.; widespread but
uncommon throughout S Ca. mtns., foothills, and
valleys
May -
July
Fed: None
Calif: S4
CNPS: List 4.2
Low-Mod
Carex comosa
Bristly sedge
Marshes and swamps, lake margins, valley and
foothill grassland, coastal prairie, wet places -5 to
1005m.
May -
Sept
Fed: None
Calif: S2
CNPS: List 2B.1
Absent
Castilleja cinerea
Ash-gray paintbrush
Typically found in meadows, clay openings and
pebble-plains within Creosote bush scrub, pinyon-
juniper woodland & red fir forest habitats. Elev.
1800-2960m. Mainly in the San Bernardino Mnts.
June-
August
Fed: THR
Calif: S2
CNPS: List 1B.2
Absent
(elev.range)
Castilleja lasiorhyncha
San Bernardino Mountain’s
owl’s-clover
Montane Meadows, Pebble Pavement/ Plain. moist
edges of springs/ seeps on clay soil in San
Bernardino Mnts. Wet meadows, openings in
coniferous forest. Soil at Cuyamaca Lake historic
pop Holland stony fine sandy loam, loamy alluvial
land. San Bern. Co. near Big Bear Lake and Lake
Arrowhead Elev range 1300-2390 m
May -
Aug
Fed: None
Calif: S2
CNPS: List 1B.2
USFS: S
Absent
(elev.range)
Centromadia pungens ssp.
laevis (Hemizonia pungens
ssp. laevis)
Smooth tarplant
Seasonally wet low elev. Grassland, also fallow
fields, drainage ditches; primarily in SW Riv. Co.
but a few sites in interior valleys of LA, San Bern.,
San Diego Cos. Elevational range from 0-640 m
April –
Sept
Fed: None
Calif: S2
CNPS: List 1B.1
Absent
Chloropyron maritimum ssp.
maritimum
Salt marsh bird’s-beak
Coastal salt marsh and coastal dunes. Limited to
the higher zones of the salt marsh habitat. Below
100 ft. elevation
May -
Oct
Fed: END
Calif: END
CNPS: List 1B.2
Absent
Special Status Species Habitat and Distribution Flower
season
Status
Designation
Occurrence
Probability
Chorizanthe parryi var. parryi
Parry's spineflower
LA, San Bernardino, and Riverside Cos.; sandy
places in alluvial washes, coastal or desert
scrublands, valley and foothill grasslands," +/-
1000-4000 ft. elev.
April -
June
Fed: None
Calif: S3
CNPS: List 1B.1
USFS: S
Moderate
Chorizanthe xanti var.
leucotheca
White-bracted spineflower
Sandy or gravelly soil, desert shrubland, pinyon-
juniper woodland, 300-1200m elev.; E San
Bernardino and N San Jacinto Mts.
April-
June
Fed: None
Calif: S3
CNPS: List 1B.2
USFS: S
Low
Cuscuta obtusiflora var.
glandulosa
Peruvian dodder
Freshwater marshes and swamps. 15-280m July -
Oct
Fed: None
Calif: SH
CNPS: List 2B.2
Absent
Dodecahema leptocerus
Slender-horned
spineflower
Open, sandy alluvial benches in valleys & canyons.
Shrubland, cismontane woodland; San Fernando
Valley, Santa Ana River Valley, W Riverside Co.
Range 650 – 2500 ft. El.
April -
June
Fed: END
Calif: END
CNPS: List 1B.1
Low
Eriastrum densifoloium
ssp. sanctorum
Santa An a River woollystar
Shrubland, alluvial fans and plains; endemic to
Santa Ana River watershed, Orange Co. to San
Bernardino Co. (Zembel & Kramer 1984)
May -
Sept.
Fed: END
CA: END
CNPS: List 1B.1
Low
Fimbristylis thermalis
Hot springs fimbristylis
Found in fresh water wetlands, freshwater marsh,
Mineralized sands of springs, meadows and
alkaline seeps. El. range 360 – 4400ft.
July -
Sept
Fed: None
Calif: S2
CNPS: List 2B.2
Absent
Galium californicum ssp.
Primum
Alvin Meadow bedstraw
Chaparral, lower montane coniferous forest.
Granitic, sandy soils. Grows in shade of trees and
shrubs at the lower edge of the pine forest
(pine/chaparral ecotone) 1350-1700m
May -
July
Fed: None
Calif: S1
CNPS: List 1B.2
USFS: S
Absent
Helianthus nuttallii ssp.
parishii
Los Ang eles sunflower
Coastal fresh water marshes and swamps below
5500 ft elev. Distributed in SW Calif. PRESUMED
EXTINCT. Last seen in 1937.
Aug –
Oct
Fed: None
Calif: SH
CNPS: List 1A
Absent
Heuchera parishii
Parish’s alumroot
Rocky areas, Alpine boulder and rock field, lower
and upper montane and subalpine coniferous forest
in the San Bernardino Mountains. Elevation 1500–
3800 m.
June -
August
Fed: None
Calif: S3
CNPS: List 1B.3
USFS: S
Absent
(elev.range)
Horkelia cuneata ssp
puberula
Mesa horkelia
Perennial herb found in chaparral, cismontane
woodland and coastal scrub on sandy or gravely
soils. Elevational range 229 – 2296 feet.
Feb –
July
(Sept
rare)
Fed: None
Calif: S1
CNPS: List 1B.1
USFS: S
Moderate
Imperata brevifolia
California satintail
Perennial herb found in wet springs, meadows,
streamsides, flood plains in chaparral, coastal
scrub, Mojavean desert scrub. San Joaquin
Valley, San Gabriel Mts, San Bernardino Mts.,
Elevational range 0 – 1640ft.
Sept -
May
Fed: None
Calif: S3
CNPS: List 2B.1
USFS: S
Absent
Ivesia argyrocoma var.
argyrocoma
Silver-haired ivesia
Meadows and seeps, pebble plains in Upper
montane coniferous forest. Elev. Range 1463-
2960m. Found in the San Bernardino Mountains
June-
August
Fed: None
Calif: S2
CNPS: List 1B.2
USFS: S
Absent
(elev.range)
Lasthenia glabrata ssp.
coulteri
Coulter's goldfields
Coastal salt marsh, inland saline playas, vernal
pools; coastal sites Santa Barb. to Baja Ca,
scattered inland sites incl. Kern Co., deserts, and
W Riverside Co. 1-1220m elevation
Feb -
June
Fed: None
Calif: S2
CNPS: List 1B.1
Absent
Lepidium virginicum var.
robinsonii
Robinson's pepper grass
Shrublands (chaparral & coastal sage scrub) below
about 2900 ft. elev.; LA Co, inland to Riverside &
San Bernardino Cos, and S to Baja Calif
Jan -
July
Fed: None
Calif: S3
CNPS: List 4.3
Moderate
Lilium parryi
Lemon lily
Meadows , seeps and streambanks ; 1220-2745m
elev; in the mountains of S Calif. and SE Arizona
July -
August
Fed: None
Calif: S3
CNPS: List 1B.2
USFS: S
Absent
(elev.range)
Lycium parishii
Parish's desert-thorn
Arid slopes and sand flats, below ±3300 ft. elev.; W
low desert (Riv. and San Diego Cos.), and interior
valleys (Riv Co.); disjunct to Ariz, and Sonora
(Mexico); historic locations in San Bernardino Val
now extinct
March -
April
Fed: None
Calif: S1
CNPS: List 2B.3
Absent
Malacothamnus parishii
Parish’s bush-mallow
Chaparral and coastal scrub. Elev. Range 305-455
m. “Known only from the type collection (in 1895).
Extirpated by urbanization. RIV Co. record from the
Santa Rosa Mtns. probably erroneous, based on a
misidentification of Sphaeralcea. Field surveys
unsuccessful.” (CNPS, 2015)
June-
July
Fed: None
Calif: SX
CNPS: List 1A
USFS: S
Absent
Special Status Species Habitat and Distribution Flower
season
Status
Designation
Occurrence
Probability
Monardella macrantha ssp.
hallii
Hall’s monardella
Montane forests valley and foothill grassland and
mixed chaparral; 730-2195m elev; San Bern and
San Gabriel Mts., Peninsular Ranges (Riverside
and San Diego Cos.)
June –
Oct
Fed: None
Calif: S3
CNPS: List 1B.3
USFS: S
Absent
(elev.range)
Monardella pringlei
Pringle’s monardella
Coastal scrub. Sandy hills 300-400m May -
June
Fed: None
Calif: SX
CNPS: List 1A
Absent
Nama stenocarpum
Mud nama
Saline or alkaline mud flats of lakes, playa lakes,
etc. Generally below about 1500 ft. elev.;
occurrence near Mystic Lake
Jan. –
July
Fed: None
Calif: S1S2
CNPS: List 2B.2
Absent
Nasturtium gambelii
Gambel’s watercress
Montane streams, marshes and lake margins, 16 -
1083 ft. historically on south central and southern
coast of California. Three populations known in
CA from San Luis Obispo & Santa Barbara Cos.
One Record from each S. San Bernardino, LA and
Orange Cos from the early 1900 from collections
locations vague and believed developed.
May -
August
Fed: END
Calif: THR
CNPS: List 1B.1
Absent
Packera bernardina
San Bernardino ragwort
Meadows and seeps, pebble plains in Upper
montane coniferous forest. Elev. Range 1800-
2300m. Found in the San Bernardino Mountains
May-July Fed: None
Calif: S2
CNPS: List 1B.2
USFS: S
Absent
(elev.range)
Perideridia parishii ssp.
Parishii
Parish’s yampah
Meadows and seeps in lower and upper montane
coniferous forest. Elev. Range 1465-3000m.
Found in the San Bernardino Mountains.
June-
August
Fed: None
Calif: S2
CNPS: List 2B.2
USFS: S
Absent
(elev.range)
Ribes divaricatum var.
parishii
Parish’s gooseberry
Riparian woodland. On the banks of creeks in
damp land, meadows or swamps. Willow swales
in riparian habitats 65-100m
Feb -
April
Fed: None
Calif: SH
CNPS: List 1A
Absent
Schoenus nigricans
Black bog-rush
Marsh & Swamps often alkaline. 150 – 2000 m. Aug -
Sept
Fed: None
Calif: S2
CNPS: List 2B.2
USFS: S
Absent
Sidalcea hickmanii ssp
parishii
Parish’s checkerbloom
Chaparral, open conifer forest, sometimes on
serpentine soils. Elevation 50–2200 m.
Outer South Coast Ranges & Western Transverse
Ranges (Santa Barbara Co.), San Bernardino Mts .
June -
August
Fed: None
Calif: RARE
CNPS: List 1B.2
USFS: S
Low
Sidalcea malviflora ssp.
dolosa
Bear Valley checkerbloom
Meadows and seeps in lower and upper montane
coniferous forests and riparian woodlands. Elev.
Range 1495-2685 m. Known only from the San
Bernardino Mountains
May-
August
Fed: None
Calif: S2S3
CNPS: List 1B.2
USFS: S
Absent
(elev.range)
Sidalcea neomexicana
Salt Spring checkerbloom
Coastal scrub, desert scrub, chaparral, yellow pine
forest (Alkaline playas and wetlands); 50-5000 ft.
elevation SW Calif., Baja Ca., SW US, mainland
Mexico
March -
June
Fed: none
Calif: S2S3
CNPS: List 2B.2
USFS: S
Low
Sidalcea pedata
Bird-foot checkerbloom
Meadows and seeps. Mesic soils. Pebble plains.
Elev. Range 1600-2500m. Known from the San
Bernardino Mountains. thought to be Extirpated
according to the CNDDB.
Fed: END
Calif: END
CNPS: List 1B.1
Absent
(elev.range)
Sphenopholis obtusata
Prairie wedge grass
Mesic soils, meadows, seeps, cismontane
woodland. Between 980-6560 ft. elev. ne South
Coast (Santa Ana River), San Bernardino
Mountains, south-central Peninsular Ranges
(Cuyamaca Mtns), White and Inyo Mountains
April-
July
Fed: none
Calif: S2
CNPS: List 2B.2
Absent
Streptanthus bernardinus
Laguna Mountain
jewelflower
Moist canyons; 180-300m elev.; desert slopes of
San Jacinto Mts., San Diego area, Arizona, tropical
Mexico
May -
Aug
Fed: None
Calif: S3S4
CNPS: List 4.3
Absent
Streptanthus campestris
Southern jewelflower
Chaparral or lower montane coniferous Forest.
Elev. Between 670-2500 meters. San Bernardino,
Riverside and San Diego Cos.
May -
July
Fed: None
Calif: S3
CNPS: List 1B.3
USFS: S
Absent
(elev.range)
Symphyotrichum defoliatum
San Bernardino aster
Near ditches, streams and springs. Cismontane
woodland, lower montane coniferous forest,
coastal scrub, meadows and seeps, marshes,
July-
Nov
Fed: None
Calif: S2
CNPS: List 1B.2
USFS: S
Absent
Thelypteris puberula var.
sonorensis
Sonoran maiden fern
Meadows, Seeps /streambanks between ±150
and1800 ft. el; coastal foothills of Santa Monica,
San Gabriel, San Bernardino Mts, desert foothills
of San Jacinto Mts; to Az and Baja Ca.
Jan -
Sept
Fed: None
Calif: S2
CNPS: List 2B.2
USFS: S
Absent
Special Status Species Habitat and Distribution Flower
season
Status
Designation
Occurrence
Probability
Trichocoronis wrightii var.
wrightii
Wright's trichocoronis
Alkaline meadows, marshes, vernal pools; San
Joaquin Valley (now extinct), San Jacinto Valley,
disjunct to Texas
May -
Sept
Fed: None
Calif: S1
CNPS: List 2B.1
Absent
Plant references: CDFW (1998, 1999, 2015), Hickman (ed., 1993) Munz (1974), Skinner & Pavlik (1994), USFW S (1993, 1996), CNPS
2015, Calflora 2015.
Special Status Species HABITAT AND DISTRIBUTION Status
Designation
Occurrence
Probability
FISH (3)
Catostomus santaanae
Santa Ana sucker
Silver fish with dark irregular blotches on the dorsal surface.
200m. in length. In small to medium permanent streams. LA
and San Gabriel drainage, lower Santa Ana River.
Fed: THR
Calif: SSC
NDDB: S1
Absent
Rhinichthys osculus
“subspecies 3”
Santa Ana speckled dace
Endemic to Santa Ana and San Gabriel Riv. watersheds,
historic in Big Tujunga Cyn. Santa Ana River populations in
lower San Bernardino Mtn foothills & washes
Fed: None
Calif: SSC
NDDB: S1
USFS: S
Absent
Gila orcuttii
Arroyo chub
Slow –moving or backwater sections of warm/ cool streams
with mud or sand substrates. LA, San Gabriel, San Luis Rey,
Santa Ana & Santa Margarita Rivers and Malibu and San Juan
creeks.
Fed: None
Calif: SSC
NDDB: S2
USFS: S
Absent
REPTILES AND AM PHIBIANS (14)
Anniella pulchra pulchra
California silvery legless
lizard
Various habitats, mainly shrublands, <6000’ elevation; Coast
Ranges from Bay area to northern Baja Calif., sw Sierra
Nevada, parts of the Central Valley, Trans. and Peninsular.
ranges
Fed: None
Calif: SSC
NDDB: S3
USFS: S
Moderate
Aspidoscelis hyperythra
Orange-throated whiptail
Low-elevation coastal scrub, chaparral, and valley-foothill
hardwood. Sandy areas, patches of rock. Southern Ca., west
of desert, to tip of Baja California.
Fed: None
Calif: SSC
NDDB: S2
USFS: S
Low
Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri
Coastal whiptail
Woodlands, shrublands; SW Ca. through much of Baja Ca. ,
below ±7500 ft. elev.
Fed: None
Calif: None
NDDB:S2S3
Occurs
Batrachoseps gabrieli
San Gabriel slender
salamander
Lives and lays eggs in moist places on land. Found under
large rocks, logs, and bark. A relict species, found only in a
few locations in the San Gabriel Mts. and the western end of
the San Bernardino Mts. 1,200 - 5,085 ft. elev. Inhabits
forested talus slopes, and shaded areas near a stream.
Fed: None
Calif: None
NDDB: S2S3
USFS: S
Absent-Low
Charina trivergata
Rosy boa
Rocky brushlands and desert. Attracted to permanent and
intermittent streams. Death Valley, CA., to the tip of Baja
California, and coastal southern CA to south-central Arizona.
Fed: None
Calif: None
NDDB: S3S4
USFS: S
Absent
Charina umbratica
Southern rubber boa
Found in a few locales in the San Bernardino and San Jacinto
mntn ranges. Woodland and coniferous forest. Usually they
are found within several hundred meters of water. From 5000-
9,150 ft. ele
Fed: None
Calif: THR
NDDB: S2S3
USFS: S
Absent
Crotalus ruber
Northern red-diamond
rattlesnake
Desert scrub, thorn scrub, and chaparral habitats below
4,000ft. San Bernardino County south through most of Baja
California, Mexico.
Fed: None
Calif: SSC
NDDB: S2?
USFS: S
High
Diadophis punctatus (ssp.
modestus and similis)
San Bernardino ringneck
snake
Open relatively rocky areas within valley-foothill locales; mixed
chaparral / annual grasslands; Riv. County, southwest SB, Vent.
and LA counties, northwest Baja Calif.
Fed: None
Calif: None
NDDB: S2?
USFS: S
Moderate
Lampropeltis zonata
parvirubra
California mountain
Kingsnake (San Bernardino
pop.)
Forests and chaparral with rock outcrops or talus, often
riparian, 1200-8100 ft. elev.; San Gabriel, San Bernardino, &
San Jacinto Mts
Fed: None
Calif: SSC
NDDB: S2 ?
USFS: S
Low
Phrynosoma blainvillii
Coast horned lizard
Open areas of sandy soil and low veg. in valleys, foothills and
semiarid mts. 0-8000ft. Coastal sage scrub, low elevation
chaparral, annual grassland, oak and riparian woodlands, and
coniferous forests. SW CA to NW Baja CA, Mex
Fed: None
Calif: SSC
NDDB: S3S4
High
Special Status Species HABITAT AND DISTRIBUTION Status
Designation
Occurrence
Probability
Rana draytonii
California red-legged frog
Pools in low-gradient foothill and valley streams (esp.
intermittent) to ±4000 ft.; only extant S CA pops are in Ventura
Co. and Santa Rosa Plateau (Riv. Co.)
Fed: THR
Calif: SSC
NDDB: S2S3
Absent
Rana muscosa
Southern Mountain yell ow-
legged frog
Always encountered within a few feet of water. Tadpoles may
require up to 2 years to complete development
Fed: END
Ca: END
NDDB: S1
USFS: S
1.7 mi e in the
mountains
Absent
Scaphiopus hammondii
Western spadefoot toad
Breeds in quiet streams & vernal pools, burrows beneath sand
during dry season; W Ca., Cent. Val. To Baja Ca.
Fed: None
Ca: SSC
NDDB: S3
Low
Thamnophis hammondii
Two-striped garter snake
In or near perennial fresh water and adjacent riparian habitat,
usu. about pools in streams; SW Ca &NW Baja Ca
Fed: None
Calif: SSC
NDDB: S3S4
USFS: S
Low
BIRDS (20):
Accipiter cooperii
Cooper’s hawk
(nesting)
Cismontane woodland, riparian forest/woodland (including oak
or walnut woodland and gum trees), upper montane coniferous
forest. Forages open areas over scrublands; CA, Mex, Central
America.
Fed: None
Calif: WL
NDDB: S4
Nesting: Mod
Foraging:
Occurs
Agelaius tricolor
Tricolored blackbird
(nesting colony)
Breeds colonially in freshwater marshes, nomadic among
marshes and fields in winter; almost completely endemic to
Calif.
Fed: None
Calif: END
NDDB: S1S2
Low
Aimophila ruficeps canescens
Southern California
Rufous-crowned sparrow
Sparse, mixed chaparral, scrub, rocky, brushy slopes. Central
California to Baja California.
Fed: None
Calif: WL
NDDB: S2S3
Moderate-High
Artemisiospiza belli belli
Bell’s sage sparrow
Sage scrub and chaparral communities. Central Washington
southward to Baja California, Mexico.
Fed: None
Calif: WL
NDDB: S2?
Moderate-High
Aquila chrysaetos
Golden eagle
(nesting & wintering)
Nests on rock ledge of cliff or in large tree (e.g., oak or
eucalyptus in CA). Pair may have several alternate nests; may
use same nest in consecutive years or shift to alternate nest
used in different years. Forages in grassland and open habitats
in rolling foothills, mtn areas, sage-juniper flats, and deserts. W.
North America. This species is very sensitive to disturbance.
Fed: None
Calif: FP, WL
NDDB: S3
Nesting: Absent
Foraging: Low
Athene cunicularia
Burrowing owl
(burrow sites and some
wintering sites)
Open dry grassland, desert or shrubland areas. Small mammal
burrows are an essential element of burrowing owl habitat.
Although they can occasionally occupy man-made structures.
SW Canada south to Tierra del Fuego.
Fed: None
Calif: SSC
NDDB: S3
Low (survey)
Buteo regalis
Ferruginous hawk
(wintering)
Foraging in agricultural fields, grasslands and desert scrub.
California.
Fed: None
Calif: WL
NDDB:
S3S4
Low
Buteo swainsoni
Swainson's Hawk
(nesting)
Grassland/agricultural; large trees for nesting, desert scrub w
Joshua Tree & freemont cottonwood overstory, near streams
and open fields. Breeds overwhelmingly in Great Basin and
Cent Valley of Ca.
Fed: None
Calif: THR
NDDB: S3
Nesting: Low
Foraging: Low
Coccyzus
americanusoccidentalis
Western yell ow-billed
cuckoo
Inhabits extensive, relatively broad, well-shaded riparian forests.
Declined to only a handful of tiny populations in California.
Historically it occurred in most of the United States (excluding
the northwestern states), and into Baja Ca and northern Mexico.
Fed: THR
Calif: END
NDDB: S1
USFS: S
Absent
Elanus leucurus
White-tailed kite
(nesting)
Breeds in woodlands and riparian forests or near marshes at the
edge of open terrain/foraging areas such as savanna, partially
cleared lands and cultivated fields, mostly in lowland situations.
Pacific Coast (CA, no. Baja CA, OR), other scattered localities
Fed: None
Calif: FP
NDDB:
S3S4
Nesting: Low
Foraging: Mod
Empidonax traillii extimus
Southwestern willow
flycatcher
(nesting)
Rare and local is southern Calif.; breeds in extensive thickets of
willow riparian forests; southwest US and northern Baja Calif.
Fed: END
Calif: END
NDDB: S1
USFS: S
Absent
Eremophila alpestris actia
California horned lark
Short-grass prairie, “bald” hills, mtn meadows, open coastal
plains, fallow fields and alkali flats. W/i coastal Sonoma Co. to
San Diego Co., San Joaquin Valley and east to foothills
Fed: None
Calif: WL
NDDB: S3
Moderate
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Bald eagle
(nesting & wintering)
Breed in large trees, usually near major rivers or lakes; winters
more widely; wide but scattered distribution in N America; esp.
coastal regions
Fed: Delisted
Calif: END/FP
NDDB: S2
USFS: S
Nesting: Absent
Foraging: Low
Special Status Species HABITAT AND DISTRIBUTION Status
Designation
Occurrence
Probability
Icteria virens
Yellow-breasted chat
(nesting)
Summer resident, inhabits riparian thickets of willow near
watercourses, low dense riparian willow.
Fed: None
Calif: SSC
NDDB: S3
Absent
Lanius ludovicianus
Loggerhead shrike
(nesting)
Open areas where small trees, shrubs, and fences can provide
suitable perches. Nests in small trees and large shrubs.
Throughout much of North America.
Fed: None
Calif: SSC
NDDB: S4
Nesting: High
Foraging:
Occurs
Plegadis chihi
White-faced ibis
(nesting colony)
Fresh and saltwater marshes containing rushes and sedges for
nesting. Also near ponds, rivers and some agricultural fields. 0-
4300m elev. Widespread in western and mid-west US.
Fed: None
Calif: WL
NDDB: S3S4
Low
Polioptila californica californica
coastal California
gnatcatcher
Sage scrub comms. also chaparral, grasslands & riparian
comms adjacent to or mixed w/ sage scrub. So Ventura Co to
LA, Orange, Riv., San Bern., San D. Cos into Baja Ca, Mexico.
Fed: THR
Calif: SSC
NDDB: S2
Low (survey)
Setophaga petechia
Yellow Warbler
Riparian, inc. willow, cottonwood, sycamore Alders and aspen
for nesting and foraging, also conifer forest.
Fed: None
Calif: SSC
NDDB: S3S4
Absent
Spinus lawrencei
Lawrence’s goldfinch
(nesting)
Nests in open oak or other woodlands. Dry grassy slopes with
weed patches and chaparral, but is generally associated with
oaks. near water and herbaceous habitats for feeding.
Fed: None
Calif: None
NDDB: S3
Nesting: Low-
Mod
Foraging:
Occurs
Vireo bellii pusillus
Least Bell’s vireo
Found in riparian woodlands, bottomlands, and mesquite.
Ranges from northern Mex and Baja Ca, into so Ca, and the so.
mid-western US
Fed: END
Calif: END
NDDB: S2
Absent
MAMMALS (15):
Chaetodipus fallax fallax
Northwestern San Diego
pocket mouse
Open shrublands and sandy areas; SW Calif. and NW Baja
Calif. (inland to San Bernardino Val)
Fed: None
Calif: SSC
NDDB: S3S4
Occurs
(SBKR trapping
study)
Dipodomys merriami parvus
San Bernardino kangaroo
rat
Sparse, gently sloping grassland, sometimes at margins of
cultivated or disturbed lands; San Bernardino County W
Riverside Co. and adjacent San Diego Co.
Fed: END
Calif: SSC
NDDB: S1
High
(SBKR trapping
study)
Dipodomys stephensi
Stephens' kangaroo rat
Sparse, gently sloping grassland, sometimes at margins of
cultivated or disturbed lands; San Bernardino County W
Riverside Co. and adjacent San Diego Co.
Fed: END
Ca: THR
NDDB: S2
Absent
Eumops perotis californicus
Western mastiff bat
Lowlands (with rare exceptions); Cent and So Ca., southern
AZ, NM, southwest TX; roosts in deep rock crevices, often cliff
faces. Forages over wide area. Can roost in trees.
Fed: None
Calif: SSC
NDDB: S3S4
Roosting: Abs
Foraging: Mod
Glaucomys sabrinus
californicus
San Bernardino flying
squirrel
Mature mixed conifer forest (white fir, Jeffrey pine and black
oak) with large trees and snags, closed canopy, downed
woody debris and riparian areas. from 4000 – 8500 ft.
elevation. San Bernardino and San Jacinto Mnt. Ranges (near
extirpated in the San Jacinto Mts.)
Fed: None
Calif: SSC
NDDB:S1S2
USFS: S
Absent
Lasiurus xanthinus
Western yell ow bat
Roosts in trees, hanging from the underside of leaves. Desert
regions of the sw. US. With a particular association to palm
trees. Distributed in So. CA, AZ, NM and TX, into Mexico.
Fed: None
Calif: SSC
NDDB: S3
Roosting: Abs
Foraging: Low
Leptonycteris yerbabuenae
Lesser long-nosed bat
Thorn scrub and deciduous forest. Roosts in caves and
mines, often in large colonies. Suitable roost sites and
extensive populations of columnar cacti and agaves are critical
resources for this bat. Ranges from central California,
southern Arizona and New Mexico south into Mexico and
Central America. USFW S identifies the range and recovery as
AZ. And NM in the US.
Fed: END
Calif: None
NDDB: S1
Absent
Lepus californicus bennettii
San Diego black-tailed
jackrabbit
Chaparral, coastal or Riversidean sage scrub with adjacent
open grassland. Los Angeles County south to San Quintin,
Baja Ca, Mex.
Fed: None
Calif: SSC
NDDB: S3S4
Occurs
Neotamias speciosus
speciosus
Lodgepole chipmunk
Subalpine mixed conifer forest containing lodgepole pine, red
fir and Jeffery pine and other woodland vegetation including fir,
pine cedar and black oak. Elev. Range 1500-3300m. Found in
the San Bernardino, San Jacinto & San Gabriel Mtns in CA.
Fed: None
Calif: None
NDDB: S2S3
Absent
Neotoma lepida intermedia
San Diego desert wood rat
Arid shrublands, and rocky outcrops and crevices; cismontane
Calif., San Luis Obispo to San Diego County and northwest
Baja Calif. Found at elevations between 0- 7000ft.
Fed: None
Calif: SSC
NDDB: S3S4
Moderate
Nyctinomops femorosaccus
Pocketed free-tailed bat
Deserts and arid lowlands; E Riv and San Diego Cos, through
SW US, Baja Calif., mainland Mexico; Roost mainly in crevices
of high cliffs
Fed: None
Calif: SSC
NDDB: S3
Roosting: Abs
Foraging: Abs
Special Status Species HABITAT AND DISTRIBUTION Status
Designation
Occurrence
Probability
Onychomys torridus ramona
So. grasshopper mouse
Arid cismontane lowlands, LA through SD counties and
northwest Baja Calif.
Fed: None
Calif: SSC
NDDB: S3
Low
Perognathus alticolus alticolus
White-eared pocket mouse
Open grassy/weedy/dry bracken areas among sagebrush and
other shrubs in ponderosa/Jeffrey pine, pinyon/juniper, or
montane hardwood-confer associations. Secondary habitat
open areas in Joshua tree and high desert shrub assoc.
Known from the San Bernardino and Tehachapi Mountains.
Elev. Range 3500-6000 ft. asl. No specimens identified
despite trapping since the 1930s.
Fed: None
Calif: SSC
NDDB: SH
USFS: S
Absent
Perognathus longimembris
brevinasus
Los Angeles pocket mouse
Annual grassland, sage scrub, alluvial sage scrub. So
California from Rancho Cucamonga (west boundary), San
Gorgonio (east), Aguanga and Oak Grove, San Diego (south).
Fed: None
Calif: SSC
NDDB: S1S2
Occurs
(SBKR trapping
study)
Taxidea taxus
American badger
Mountains, deserts, interior valleys where burrowing animals
are available prey and soil permits digging; throughout Central
and western North America
Fed: None
Calif: SSC
NDDB: S3
Low
INVERTEBRATES (7):
Bombus crotchii
Crotch bumble bee
Open grassland and scrub habitats. Nesting underground.
Pacific Coast, Western Desert, Great Valley, and adjacent
foothills through most of southwestern California, southwest
NV and Baja California.
Fed: None
Calif: None
NDDB: S1S2
High
Bombus morrisoni
Morrison bumble bee
Open dry scrub. Nests underground, in structures and grass
hummocks. Mountain west from CA east of the Sierra-Cascade
Ranges to southern British Columbia. In the desert west
especially the highlands. East to NM, TX and north to W. SD.
Fed: None
Calif: None
NDDB: S1S2
Low
Carolella busckana
Busck’s gallmoth
Beaches, salt marshes, sand dunes and coastal scrub dunes,
presumed extirpated
Fed: None
Calif: None
NDDB: SH
Absent
Ceratochrysis longimala
Desert cuckoo wasp
Flowers in arid soils. This species lays their eggs in the nests
of bees, wasps and other host insects.
Fed: None
Calif: None
NDDB: S1
Low
Euchloe hyantis andrewsi
Andrew’s marble butterfly
Rocky canyons, cliffs, moraines and gravelly flats. Larvae
host plants, mustard, especially Streptanthus sp. Southern
Oregon south through California west of Sierra Nevada crest
to northern Baja California.
Fed: None
Calif: None
NDDB: S1
Absent
Raphiomidas terminatus
abdominalis
Delhi sands flower-loving
fly
Delhi fine sands, often with unconsolidated dunes present.
Southwestern San Bernardino County and northwestern
Riverside County
Fed: END
Calif: None
NDDB: S1
Absent
Streptocephalus woottoni
Riverside fairy shrimp
Vernal pools near Murrieta (Riv.Co.), Miramar and Otay Mesa
(San Diego Co.), one site in Orange Co., and two sites in Baja.
Fed: END
Calif: None
NDDB: S1S2
Absent
(range and
habitat)
CNPS 2015, Calflora 2015, CNDDB 2015, IUCNRedlist.org 2015, animaldiversity.org 2015
Federal designations: (federal Endangered Species Act, US Fish and Wildlife Service):
END: Federally listed, endangered.
THR: Federally listed, threatened.
C1: Category l candidate. Sufficient data are available to support federal listing, but not listed at this time
(equivalent to “candidate” (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1996).
Former C2: Formerly a Category 2 candidate species. Threat and/or distribution data are not sufficient to support
federal listing at this time. No longer recognized by FW S.
C3a: Extinct.
C3b: Taxonomically invalid.
C3c: Too widespread and/or not threatened. No longer considered as a federal candidate for listing.
FSC: Federal Species of Concern
State designations: (California Endangered Species Act, California Dept. of Fish and Game)
END: State listed, endangered.
THR: State listed, threatened.
RARE: State listed as rare (Listed "Rare" animals have been re-designated as Threatened, but Rare plants
have retained the Rare designation.)
SSC: Species of Special Concern (DFG)
CDF&G Natural Diversity Data Base Designations: Applied to special status plants and sensitive plant
communities; where correct category is uncertain, CDF&G uses two categories or question marks.
S1: Fewer than 6 occurrences or fewer than 1000 individuals or less than 2000 acres.
S1.1: Very threatened
S1.2: Threatened
S1.3: No current threats known
S2: 6-20 occurrences or 1000-3000 individuals or 2000-10,000 acres (decimal suffixes same as above).
S3: 21-100 occurrences or 3000-10,000 individuals or 10,000-50,000 acres (decimal suffixes same as
above).
S4: Apparently secure in California; this rank is clearly lower than S3 but factors exist to cause some
concern, i.e., there is some threat or somewhat narrow habitat. No threat rank.
S5: Demonstrably secure or ineradicable in California. No threat rank.
SH: All sites are historical; the element has not been seen for at least 20 years, but suitable habitat still
exists.
SX: All sites are extirpated; this element is extinct in the wild.
California Native Plant Society (CNPS) designations: (Note: According to CNPS (Skinner and Pavlik 1994), plants
on Lists 1B and 2 meet definitions for listing as threatened or endangered under Section 1901, Chapter 10 of the
California Fish and Game Code. This interpretation is inconsistent with other definitions; see text.)
List 1A: Plants presumed extinct in California.
List lB: Plants rare and endangered in California and throughout their range.
List 2: Plants rare, threatened or endangered in California but more common elsewhere in their range.
List 3: Plants about which we need more information; a review list.
List 4: Plants of limited distribution; a watch list.
USFS designations:
S: Sensitive
Definitions of occurrence probability:
Occurs: Observed on the site during surveys described here, or recorded on-site by other qualified biologists.
High: Observed in similar habitat in region by qualified biologists, or often occurs in habitat similar to that on
the site, and within the known range of the species.
Moderate: Reported sightings in surrounding region, or site is within the known range of the species and often
occurs in habitat similar to that on the site.
Low: Site is within the known range of the species but habitat on the site is rarely used by the species.
Absent: A focused study failed to detect the species, or, no suitable habitat is present, or the site is well
outside known geographic or elevational ranges.
Unknown: No focused surveys have been performed in the region, and the species' distribution and habitat are
poorly known.
Table 6. Location of special status species identified during the current survey.
Taxon Number Date GPS Location Elevation (ft.)
CW 1 5-13-2015 N 34.106402, W -117.164833 1362’
BTJA 1 5-13-2014 N 34.10844, W -117.16383 1385’
BTJA 1 6-18-2014 N 34.10697, W -117.16275 1393’
LOSH 1 7-15-2011 N 34.10780, W -117.16442 1370
BTJA 1 8-11-2011 N 34.10612, W -117.16109 1391
BTJA 1 9-16-2011 N 34.10712, W -117.16592 1364
CH 1 2005 N 34.109427, W -117.166382 1368
Black-tailed Jackrabbit [BTJA]. Cooper’s hawk (CH)
Loggerhead shrike (LOSH) Coastal whiptail (CW)
Table 7: Climatic Data.
Redlands, CA – KCAREDLA2 - (wunderground.com)
Year/Month High Low Precipitation
14-Sept 109.3 56.8 0.00
14-Oct 104.3 50.9 0.32
14-Nov 93.3 39.7 0.38
14-Dec 82.9 28.8 3.58
15-Jan 85.4 28.8 0.50
15-Feb 89.1 38.6 1.05
15-Mar 93.8 38.4 0.37
15-Apr 96.5 43.0 0.47
15-May 95.1 46.9 0.75
15-Jun 106.1 55.1 0.00
15-Jul 100.8 57.1 1.08
15-Aug 109 58.8 0.00
Total 2014-15 season 8.50
Redlands station used because the Highlands and San Bernardino Airport
stations did not consistently report precipitation.
APPENDIX B
Site Photographs
5313
5307
5306
5365, 66
5345
5309
5319
5316
5343
5314
5311
Photo 5365
Taken on the northeast corner facing
west. Alluvial fan sage scrub.
Photo 5366
Taken on the northeast corner facing
south. Alluvial fan sage scrub.
Photo 5345
Taken near the southeast corner facing
northwest. Alluvial Fan sage scrub.
Photo 5319
Taken near the center of the north
boundary facing west. Cleared area
along the northern boundary of the
eucalyptus groves.
Photo 5307
Taken at the north/central end of the
agricultural area facing south.
Disced land in the foreground
Eucalyptus fields on the right.
Photo 5309
Taken at the northwest corner facing
south. Eucalyptus groves on the
left, access road down the center
and orange fencing along the
boundary.
Photo 5306
Taken at the center of the
agricultural area facing south.
Jojoba fields.
Photo 5311
Taken at the center of the west
boundary facing south. Jojoba
groves on the left.
Photo 5313
Southwest corner facing north.
Near the old residence.
Ornamentals and disturbed areas.
Photo 5314
Near the southwest corner facing
northeast. Old structure foundation.
Ornamental species.
Photo 5316
On the southern boundary facing
north. Heavily disturbed area east
of the old structure foundation.
Photo 5343
Southern boundary near the center
of the project facing north. Alluvial
fan sage scrub.
Certification
Certification: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits
present the data and information required for this biological evaluation, and that the facts,
statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and
belief.
DATE: December 15, 2015 SIGNED:
Leslie Irish, Principal, L&L Environmental, Inc.
909-335-9897
1) Fieldwork Performed By: 2) Fieldwork Performed By:
Guy Bruyea
Name Name
3) Fieldwork Performed By: 4) Fieldwork Performed By:
Name Name
5) Fieldwork Performed By: 6) Fieldwork Performed By:
Name Name
Check here if adding any additional names / signatures below or on other side of page.
\\DARWIN\Shared Folders\L&L Documents\SERVER PROJECT FILES\UNIFIED PROJECTS\GSPI-05-646 HeatherGlen NAR\2017 ARS\Report\GSPI-05-646.ARS1 (final).doc
Celebrating 20 Years of Service to Southern CA and the Great Basin, WBE Certified (Caltrans, CPUC, WBENC)
Mailing Address: 700 East Redlands Blvd., Suite U, PMB #351, Redlands CA 92373
Delivery Address: 721 Nevada Street, Suite 307, Redlands, CA 92373
Phone: 951.681.4929 & 909.335.9897 • FAX: 951.681.6531 & 909.335.9893
December 11, 2017
Tom Bassett
℅ Stan Stringfellow
Greenspot Partners, Inc.
5120 Live Oak Canyon Road
La Verne, CA 91750
REGARDING: PHASE 1 CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT FOR THE HEATHERGLEN/TRACT
17604 PROJECT, ±60 ACRES IN THE CITY OF HIGHLAND, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY,
CALIFORNIA
L&L Environmental, Inc. (L&L) is pleased to present the attached Phase I Cultural Resources
Assessment report for your review. The attached report has been prepared in accordance with
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Thank you for the opportunity to work with you and please feel free to contact us at 909-335-
9897 should you have any questions or comments. It has been a pleasure working with you!
Sincerely,
L&L Environmental, Inc.
Leslie Nay Irish
CEO
\\DARWIN\Shared Folders\L&L Documents\SERVER PROJECT FILES\UNIFIED PROJECTS\GSPI-05-646 HeatherGlen NAR\2017 ARS\Report\GSPI-05-646.ARS1 (final).doc
Celebrating 20 Years of Service to Southern CA and the Great Basin, WBE Certified (Caltrans, CPUC, WBENC)
Mailing Address: 700 East Redlands Blvd., Suite U, PMB #351, Redlands CA 92373
Delivery Address: 721 Nevada Street, Suite 307, Redlands, CA 92373
Phone: 951.681.4929 & 909.335.9897 • FAX: 951.681.6531 & 909.335.9893
PHASE 1 CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
FOR THE HEATHERGLEN/TRACT 17604 PROJECT
±60 ACRES IN THE CITY OF HIGHLAND, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Redlands, CA USGS 7.5-Minute Topographic Quadrangle Map
Township 1 South, Range 3 West, Section 2
Prepared on Behalf of:
Tom Bassett
℅ Stan Stringfellow
Greenspot Partners, Inc.
5120 Live Oak Canyon Road
La Verne, CA 91750
Contact: Stan Stringfellow
Prepared For:
City of Highland
27215 Base Line
Highland, CA 92346
909-864-6861
Prepared By:
L&L Environmental, Inc.
Jennifer M. Sanka, M.A., RPA, Principal Investigator
William R. Gillean, B.S., Archaeologist
Leslie Nay Irish, CEO/Principal Project Manager
Fieldwork Completed By:
William R. Gillean
Fieldwork Date(s):
July 11, 2017; July 18, 2017; October 3, 2017
Report Date:
December 11, 2017
Keywords:
+60 Acres, Positive Results, 36-6848/CA-SBR-6848H, 36-6853/CA-SBR-6853H, 36-7434/CA-SBR-7434H,
36-12264/CA-SBR-12205H, 36-12265, Cram-Van Leuven Ditch, Historic Refuse Scatter/Deposit, Historic
Citrus/Poultry Ranching Complex, Greenspot Road, Redlands, CA 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle
Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
Highland, San Bernardino County, CA December 2017
GSPI-05-646.ARS1 i L&L
TABLE OF CONTENTS
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY ...................................................................................................... iii
1.0) INTRODUCTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ........................................................ 1
1.1) Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1
1.2) Project Location ............................................................................................................... 1
1.3) Project Description .......................................................................................................... 1
1.4) Cultural Resources Staff .................................................................................................. 1
1.5) Environmental Setting ..................................................................................................... 6
1.5.1) Existing Land Use/Topography/Geology ................................................................... 6
1.5.2) Vegetation ................................................................................................................. 6
1.5.3) Water Resources ...................................................................................................... 6
2.0) CULTURAL SETTING ........................................................................................................ 7
2.1) Prehistoric Setting ........................................................................................................... 7
2.1.1) Early Period (before 6000 B.C.) ................................................................................ 8
2.1.2) Millingstone Period (6000 to 3000 B.C.) .................................................................... 8
2.1.3) Intermediate Period (3000 B.C. to A.D. 500) ............................................................. 8
2.1.4) Late Prehistoric Period (A.D. 500 to A.D. 1769) ........................................................ 9
2.2) Ethnographic Setting ....................................................................................................... 9
2.2.1) Gabrieliño (Tongva) .................................................................................................10
2.2.2) Cahuilla ....................................................................................................................11
2.2.3) Serrano ....................................................................................................................12
2.3) Historic Setting ...............................................................................................................13
2.3.1) Spanish Period (1769 to 1821) .................................................................................13
2.3.2) Mexican Period (1821 to 1848) ................................................................................14
2.3.3) American Period (1848 to Present) ..........................................................................14
2.4) History of the Cram-Van Leuven Ditch ...........................................................................16
2.5) Location of the Cram-Van Leuven Ditch in the Vicinity of the Project Area .....................19
3.0) REGULATORY SETTING AND METHODS ......................................................................27
3.1) Regulatory Setting ..........................................................................................................27
3.1.1) Federal Significance Criteria ....................................................................................28
3.1.2) State Significance Criteria ........................................................................................28
3.1.3) Local Regulations ....................................................................................................29
3.2) Methods .........................................................................................................................32
3.2.1) Cultural Resources Records Search ........................................................................33
3.2.2) Historic Records Review ..........................................................................................33
3.2.3) Native American Coordination ..................................................................................33
3.2.4) Pedestrian Survey and Site Visits ............................................................................33
4.0) RESULTS ..........................................................................................................................35
4.1) Cultural Resources Records Search ...............................................................................35
4.2) Historic Records Review ................................................................................................43
4.3) Native American Coordination ........................................................................................44
4.4) Pedestrian Survey and Site Visits ...................................................................................47
4.5) Resources Located in the Project Area ..........................................................................49
4.5.1) 36-6848/CA-SBR-6848H (Cram-Van Leuven Ditch) .................................................49
4.5.2) 36-6853/CA-SBR-6853H (Historic Refuse Scatter) ..................................................51
4.5.3) 36-7434/CA-SBR-7434H (Historic Refuse Dump) ....................................................52
4.5.4) 36-12264/CA-SBR-12205H (Historic Refuse Scatter) ..............................................53
Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
Highland, San Bernardino County, CA December 2017
GSPI-05-646.ARS1 ii L&L
4.5.5) 36-12265 (Historic Citrus/Poultry Ranching Complex)..............................................53
4.6) Eligibility Recommendations and Project Impacts ...........................................................54
4.6.1) 36-6848/CA-SBR-6848H (Cram-Van Leuven Ditch) .................................................54
4.6.2) 36-6853/CA-SBR-6853H (Historic Refuse Scatter) ..................................................60
4.6.3) 36-7434/CA-SBR-7434H (Historic Refuse Dump) ....................................................62
4.6.4) 36-12264/CA-SBR-12205H (Historic Refuse Scatter) ..............................................63
4.6.5) 36-12265 (Historic Citrus/Poultry Ranching Complex)..............................................63
5.0) CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................65
5.1) Recommendations .........................................................................................................67
5.2) Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains ..................................................................68
5.3) Unanticipated Discovery of Cultural Resources ..............................................................69
6.0) REFERENCES CITED .......................................................................................................70
7.0) CERTIFICATION ...............................................................................................................75
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Personnel Qualifications .......................................................................................77
Appendix B: SCCIC Records Search Form ...............................................................................88
Appendix C: Photographs .........................................................................................................90
Appendix D: Sacred Lands Search ...........................................................................................94
Appendix E: Native American Coordination ............................................................................. 100
Appendix F: DPR 523 Forms .................................................................................................. 108
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map ..................................................................................................... 2
Figure 2. Project Location Map .................................................................................................. 3
Figure 3. Aerial Photograph ....................................................................................................... 4
Figure 4. Development Plan ....................................................................................................... 5
Figure 5. 1888 Detail Irrigation Map, San Bernardino Sheet ......................................................21
Figure 6. 1891 Irrigation Systems Map ......................................................................................22
Figure 7. USGS 1899 Redlands, CA Topographic Map .............................................................23
Figure 8. Cram and Van Leuven Ditch and North Fork Canal Map ............................................24
Figure 9. Canals and Ditches Map ............................................................................................25
Figure 10. Survey Coverage in the Project Area .......................................................................48
Figure 11. Cultural Resources in the Project Area .....................................................................50
Figure 12. Cultural Resources and Project Impacts ..................................................................61
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Previously Recorded Cultural Resources Located Within 1 Mile of the Project Area ...36
Table 2. Previous Cultural Resources Studies Within 1 Mile of the Project Area .......................42
Table 3. Summary of Native American Coordination .................................................................45
Table 4. Recommended Cultural Resources Mitigation Measures ............................................68
Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
Highland, San Bernardino County, CA December 2017
GSPI-05-646.ARS1 iii L&L
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
This report documents a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Phase I Cultural
Resources Assessment (CRA) for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project. The purpose of this
study was to determine if cultural resources more than 45 years old were observable or known
in the project area and then evaluate the potential for the proposed project to impact cultural
resources. The project would construct a residential development as outlined in Tract 17604.
This development is located within a ±60 acre project area in the City of Highland, San
Bernardino County, California. The project area includes Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs)
1210-211-18-0000, 1210-211-21-0000, 1210-211-23-0000, 1210-281-01-0000, 1210-281-02-
0000, 1210-281-03-0000, and 1210-281-04-0000. L&L Environmental, Inc. (L&L) has
completed this CRA at the request of Stan Stringfellow on behalf of Tom Bassett of Greenspot
Partners, Inc.
A cultural resources records search was completed at the South Central Coastal Information
Center (SCCIC) located at California State University, Fullerton. L&L Archaeologist William R.
Gillean completed the search on July 6, 2017 for the project area and all lands found within one
mile (Appendix B). The records search showed that 100 percent of the project area has been
previously inventoried via two (2) reports (SB-2828/Gallegos & Associates 1993; SB-
5671/ECORP 2006a). Including the two (2) reports that address the project area, a total of 16
studies have been completed within one mile and these studies have addressed approximately
30 percent of the land within the search radius. As a result of these studies, a total of 39
resources have been recorded within a one mile radius. Five (5) of these resources have been
mapped within or partially within the project area:
36-6848/CA-SBR-6848H (Cram-Van Leuven Ditch)
36-6853/CA-SBR-6853H (Historic Refuse Scatter)
36-7434/CA-SBR-7434H (Historic Refuse Dump)
36-12264/CA-SBR-12205H (Historic Refuse Scatter)
36-12265 (Historic Citrus/Poultry Ranching Complex)
According to the resource locations as mapped at the SCCIC, all of these resources are located
entirely within the project area boundary, with the exception of 36-6848/CA-SBR-6848H (Cram-
Van Leuven Ditch). 36-6848/CA-SBR-6848H generally trends east-west through the project
and extends beyond the project area boundaries. A segment of the resource measuring
approximately 1,900 feet in length traverses the central portion of the project area. The
Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
Highland, San Bernardino County, CA December 2017
GSPI-05-646.ARS1 iv L&L
resource locations are shown in relation to the project area boundary in Figure 11.
Records and maps available from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) General Land Office
(GLO) were reviewed to provide information about historic era land use and development within
the project area (BLM 2017). Archival topographic maps dating between 1895 and 1999 and
aerial photographs dating between 1938 and 2012 were also reviewed (NETR 2017). Additional
research was completed for the Cram-Van Leuven Ditch (36-6848/CA-SBR-6848H) at the A.K.
Smiley Library, the Feldhym Library, the San Bernardino County Historical Archives, the
Highland Area Historical Society (HAHS) website, and via inquires to local historians. The
results of the review indicated that the Old North Fork Ditch, which is another name for the
Cram-Van Leuven Ditch, has been variably mapped near or within the project area since the
late 1880s. In addition, a water feature is observable on aerial photographs at the mapped
location of the Cram-Van Leuven Ditch (36-6848/CA-SBR-6848H) since 1938. Finally, various
structures have been located within the southwestern portion of the project area over time and
in association with a historic age citrus and poultry ranching complex (36-12265). This complex
includes several structures and active fields or groves that were present by at least 1938 and
the structures were removed by 2009 (NETR 2017).
L&L contacted the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) requesting a Sacred Lands
File database search (SLS). The SLS was requested on June 28, 2017 and a response was
received on June 29, 2017 (Appendix D). The NAHC SLS failed to indicate the presence of
Native American cultural resources in the immediate project area. However, the NAHC noted
that the absence of specific site information does not indicate the absence of cultural resources
in any project area and that other resources should be consulted to obtain information regarding
known and previously recorded sites. Scoping letters were sent to the 19 contacts listed by the
NAHC on July 6, 2017. These packages included a letter to the San Manuel Band of Mission
Indians (SMBMI) in accordance with Goal 5.8, Policy 3 of the City of Highland General Plan
(GP) (Highland 2006). As of the date of this report, one (1) response has been received from
the SMBMI. This response stated that the project is located within Serrano ancestral territory
and they requested additional project-related information and the completion of background
research. Specifically, they recommended a records search at the SCCIC and an
archaeological pedestrian survey. In addition, they requested that the results be provided for
their review and consideration. All coordination efforts are presented in detail in Table 3 of this
report and copies of all correspondence are included in Appendix E.
Site visits were completed on July 11, 2017 and October 3, 2017 to relocate and document
Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
Highland, San Bernardino County, CA December 2017
GSPI-05-646.ARS1 v L&L
previously recorded resources and the Phase I pedestrian survey was conducted on July 18,
2017. During the pedestrian survey and site visits, no new prehistoric or historic resources were
detected and four (4) previously recorded historic resources were relocated (36-6848/CA-SBR-
6848H, 36-7434/CA-SBR-7434H, 36-12264/CA-SBR-12205H, and 36-12265). One (1)
previously recorded historic site could not be relocated (36-6853/CA-SBR-6853H). Department
of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 Update Forms were prepared for all resources associated
with the project area and they were submitted to the SCCIC for their files. The DPR 523 Forms
have been incorporated into Appendix F. The resources associated with the project area
consist of the following:
36-6848/CA-SBR-6848H (Cram-Van Leuven Ditch): This resource consists of the
mapped location of the Cram-Van Leuven Ditch, which is an irrigation ditch constructed
in 1858 by members of the Cram and the Van Leuven families. This ditch was one (1) of
the first irrigation systems emerging from the Santa Ana Canyon and it connected the
mouth of the canyon with the Cram and Van Leuven lands located at the base of the
East Highlands bench. When originally constructed, the ditch measured several miles in
length. A segment measuring about 1,900 feet has been mapped in the project area.
This segment was originally recorded in 1993 and it was updated in 2006 (Eighmey, et
al. 1993a; ECORP 2006b). L&L detected a water feature at the location of the recorded
segment in 2017 and determined that the dimensions and description provided in 2006
were generally accurate.
36-6853/CA-SBR-6853H (Historic Refuse Scatter): This site was originally recorded in
1990 as a historic age refuse scatter with artifacts dating from about World War I (1914-
1918) to the 1930s or 1940s (Romani, et al. 1990b). It could not be relocated during
studies completed in 1993, 2006, or during the current study and is presumed destroyed
(Gallegos & Associates 1993; ECORP 2006a).
36-7434/CA-SBR-7434H (Historic Refuse Dump): Initially recorded in 1993 and updated
in 2006, this site was described as a historic age domestic refuse dump with artifacts
dating to 1932 or later (Phillips and McHenry 1993; Gallegos & Associates 1993;
ECORP 2006a; ECORP 2006c). L&L relocated this site in 2017 and found that the site
exhibits the same dimensions as described in 1993 and 2006. However, only five (5)
artifacts and a scatter of milled wood planks with modern nails were detected at the site
location. While many of the diagnostic artifacts were collected in 1993, numerous
artifacts remained in 2006 and the majority of these artifacts could not be detected by
Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
Highland, San Bernardino County, CA December 2017
GSPI-05-646.ARS1 vi L&L
L&L.
36-12264/CA-SBR-12205H (Historic Refuse Scatter): This site was originally recorded
in 2006 as a sparse historic age refuse scatter dating between about 1880 and 1925
(Cotterman and Sharp 2006; ECORP 2006a). L&L relocated this site in 2017 and it
currently reflects the same dimensions and general composition as described in 2006.
However, many of the artifacts described in the original site record could not be
detected.
36-12265 (Historic Citrus/Poultry Ranching Complex): 36-12265 was originally recorded
in 2006 and it was described as an early 20th century citrus and poultry ranching
complex comprised of four (4) houses and a variety of associated features (Cotterman
2006; ECORP 2006a). L&L relocated this site in 2017; however, all of the houses and
the majority of the recorded features have been removed. A total of three (3) previously
recorded features are currently extant, including a round concrete cistern, a stone
irrigation reservoir, and a concrete well pad.
36-6848/CA-SBR-6848H (Cram-Van Leuven Ditch) is an irrigation ditch constructed in 1858 by
members of the Cram and the Van Leuven families. This ditch was one (1) of the first irrigation
systems emerging from the Santa Ana Canyon, was the subject of the first water-rights suit in
the Santa Ana River basin to be adjudicated by a court (DeWitt, et al. vs Van Leuven, et al.
1860; Beattie 1951), and it directly affected the development patterns of East Highland through
an increase in water availability and reliability. For these reasons, 36-6848/CA-SBR-6848H
appears to meet the significance criteria of the California Register of Historical Resources
(CRHR) under Criterion 1 (Event) and the City of Highland Municipal Code cultural resource
criteria under Criterion A (Section 16.32.060). However, the water feature segment in the
project area does not appear to reflect the location of the ditch during its period of significance
(1858-1881). Instead, it may represent a mapping error or a later and more southerly extension
of the ditch dating to after 1891 (see Section 2.5). In addition, the existing water feature in the
project area is in very poor condition, as it has been adversely affected by erosion over time and
is currently overgrown with vegetation and is filled with cobbles and boulders. As such, this
ditch segment possesses low integrity in general and low integrity for its period of significance
(1858-1881). Thus, the segment of 36-6848/CA-SBR-6848H (Cram-Van Leuven Ditch) mapped
within the project area is recommended not eligible for inclusion in the CRHR, not eligible as a
City of Highland cultural resource, and not significant under CEQA. The research efforts
completed during this study and recordation onto a DPR 523 Update Form exhausts this
Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
Highland, San Bernardino County, CA December 2017
GSPI-05-646.ARS1 vii L&L
resource segment’s research value and no further work is recommended prior to project
implementation.
36-6853/CA-SBR-6853H (Historic Refuse Scatter) could not be relocated within the project area
and is presumed to be destroyed. As this resource is considered destroyed, no known artifacts
or features will be impacted by the project and no further work is recommended prior to project
implementation.
36-7434/CA-SBR-7434H (Historic Refuse Dump), 36-12264/CA-SBR-12205H (Historic Refuse
Scatter), and 36-12265 (Historic Citrus/Poultry Ranching Complex) currently lack the artifact
content or features once recorded at each site and all three (3) sites have been subject to soil
disturbances associated with erosion. 36-12265 has additionally been adversely impacted by
demolition activities. None of these resources appear to retain sufficient integrity to be
considered eligible for inclusion in the CRHR and no evidence was detected to indicate that any
of these resources have the potential to yield additional information important to history
(Criterion 4). Therefore, L&L recommends 36-7434/CA-SBR-7434H, 36-12264/CA-SBR-
12205H, and 36-12265 not eligible for inclusion in the CRHR and not significant pursuant to
CEQA. In addition, L&L recommends these sites not eligible as cultural resources under
Section 16.32.060 of the City of Highland Municipal Code. Recordation onto DPR 523 Update
Forms exhausts each site’s research value and no further work is recommended for any of
these resources prior to project implementation.
Based on the results of a records search completed at the SCCIC; the pedestrian survey and
site visits; and the research, recording, and evaluation efforts, no known historical or
archaeological resources pursuant to CEQA are located in the project area. However,
archaeological monitoring is recommended during project implementation. This monitoring
program is intended to address the high sensitivity of the project area for historic age resources
and a moderate to low sensitivity for prehistoric resources. This monitoring program is outlined
in Table 4 of this report (Recommended Cultural Resources Mitigation Measures).
It should also be noted that the SMBMI have indicated that the project area lies within Serrano
ancestral territory. In addition, they have requested additional project-related information,
including the results of archaeological research and survey efforts. Upon their review of the
requested information, the SMBMI may provide additional comments or recommendations. The
results of this process may further assist in outlining the sensitivity of the project area for Native
American resources and the need or lack thereof for Native American monitoring during project
implementation.
Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
Highland, San Bernardino County, CA December 2017
GSPI-05-646.ARS1 1 L&L
1.0) INTRODUCTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
1.1) Introduction
The following report documents a Phase I CRA for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project and
was completed in accordance with CEQA. This report follows the California Office of Historic
Preservation (OHP) procedures for cultural resource surveys and is generally based on the
OHP Archaeological Resource Management Report (ARMR) format (OHP 1990).
1.2) Project Location
The proposed project is generally located in the southwestern portion of San Bernardino
County, California, and is situated north of Interstate 10 (Figure 1). Specifically, it can be found
within Section 2 of Township 1 South, Range 3 West as shown on the USGS Redlands, CA 7.5’
topographic quadrangle map (Figure 2). The project is located immediately to the south of
Greenspot Road in the City of Highland (Figure 3). The project site consists of APNs 1210-211-
18-0000, 1210-211-21-0000, 1210-211-23-0000, 1210-281-01-0000, 1210-281-02-0000, 1210-
281-03-0000, and 1210-281-04-0000 and measures +60 acres.
1.3) Project Description
The proposed project is the development of a planned housing community as outlined in Tract
17604. This development occupies ±60 acres and includes various lots and associated streets.
The development plan is shown in relation to the project area boundary in Figure 4.
1.4) Cultural Resources Staff
The cultural resources records search was conducted on July 6, 2017 at the SCCIC by L&L
Archaeologist William R. Gillean, B.S. W. Gillean completed site visits to relocate and
document previously recorded resources on July 11, 2017 and October 3, 2017 and he
performed the pedestrian survey on July 18, 2017. He acquired research materials from the
A.K. Smiley Library, the Feldhym Library, the San Bernardino County Historical Archives, and
local historians in November 2017. L&L Archaeologist Jennifer M. Sanka, M.A., RPA completed
additional research via the HAHS website and via inquires to local historians in November 2017.
J. Sanka authored the CRA with contributions from W. Gillean. L&L CEO/Principal Project
Manager Leslie Irish provided quality control oversight and J. Sanka served as the Principal
Investigator.
Professional qualifications for all team members are located in Appendix A.
Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
Highland, San Bernardino County, CA December 2017
GSPI-05-646.ARS1 2 L&L
Figure 1
Project Vicinity Map
Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
City of Highland
San Bernardino County, California
L&L Environmental, Inc.
BIOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL
INVESTIGATIONS AND MONITORING
GSPI-05-646
December 2017
Project Area
Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
Highland, San Bernardino County, CA December 2017
GSPI-05-646.ARS1 3 L&L
Figure 2
Project Location Map
(USGS Redlands [1988] quadrangle,
Section 2, Township 1 South, Range 3 West)
Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
City of Highland
San Bernardino County, California
L&L Environmental, Inc.
BIOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL
INVESTIGATIONS AND MONITORING
GSPI-05-646
December 2017
Project Area
Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
Highland, San Bernardino County, CA December 2017
GSPI-05-646.ARS1 4 L&L
Figure 3
Aerial Photograph
(Photo obtained from Google Earth, October 2016)
Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
City of Highland
San Bernardino County, California
L&L Environmental, Inc.
BIOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL
INVESTIGATIONS AND MONITORING
GSPI-05-646
December 2017
Greenspot Road
Gold Buckle Road
Abbey Way
Project Area
Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
Highland, San Bernardino County, CA December 2017
GSPI-05-646.ARS1 5 L&L
Figure 4
Development Plan
(Plan obtained from Albert A. Webb Associates, 7-21-2016)
Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
City of Highland
San Bernardino County, California
L&L Environmental, Inc.
BIOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL
INVESTIGATIONS AND MONITORING
GSPI-05-646
December 2017
Project Area
Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
Highland, San Bernardino County, CA December 2017
GSPI-05-646.ARS1 6 L&L
1.5) Environmental Setting
1.5.1) Existing Land Use/Topography/Geology
The project area is currently undeveloped; however, the remnants of a historic age citrus and
poultry ranching complex are located in the southwestern corner (36-12265). The lands
surrounding the project area are generally characterized by residential developments of varying
densities and undeveloped lands. The project area is bound to the north by Greenspot Road,
followed by a high-density residential development. It is bound to the east, south, and west by
dirt roads and undeveloped lands. To the west, the undeveloped lands are followed by
residential development.
Topographically, the project area is primarily flat and exhibits low-relief rolling hills and shallow
depressions. Elevation ranges from about 1,350 feet to 1,385 above mean sea level. Soils in
the western portion of the project area are mapped as Soboba gravelly loamy sand (SoC) while
the soils in the eastern portion are mapped as Soboba stony loamy sand (SpC) (NRCS 2017).
Geologic mapping indicates that the majority of the project area is underlain by young axial-
valley deposits of the latest Holocene (Qya5). These deposits consist of slightly to moderately
consolidated silt, sand, and gravel deposits. Smaller areas within the project area are mapped
as very young wash deposits from the latest Holocene (Qvyw). They are very slightly
consolidated sand and gravel deposits in active washes (Matti, et al. 2003).
1.5.2) Vegetation
The eastern portion of the project area is characterized by relatively undisturbed alluvial fan
sage scrub inhabited by a mixture of non-native and native plants. Areas within the western
portion of the project area are comparatively more disturbed in association with past and
ongoing human activities, such as the cultivation of Eucalyptus and jojoba. This portion of the
project area also exhibits invasive non-native plant species (L&L 2017).
1.5.3) Water Resources
A portion of the Santa Ana Wash is located approximately 0.10 mile to the south of the project
area. In addition, a water feature trends east-west across the central portion of the project area.
Currently, no water is observable in the water feature and it does not convey flows either to or
from the project area. The western end terminates near two (2) dirt roads while the eastern end
terminates at about the project area boundary and is interrupted by a modern north-south
trending flood control channel.
Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
Highland, San Bernardino County, CA December 2017
GSPI-05-646.ARS1 7 L&L
2.0) CULTURAL SETTING
2.1) Prehistoric Setting
The following section provides a brief discussion on the prehistoric and historic setting to
provide a context for understanding the relevance of resources found in and near the project
area. Additional information can be found in ethnographic studies, mission records, and major
published sources, including Kroeber (1925), Wallace (1955), Warren (1968), Heizer (1978),
Moratto (1984), Chartkoff and Chartkoff (1984), Fagan (2003), and Jones and Klar (2007).
The purpose of establishing a cultural sequence is to allow for the meaningful comparison of
material culture attributes on an intra- and inter-site basis and to provide the basis for culture-
model building. To this end, regional archaeologists often follow Wallace’s southern California
format (1955 and 1978) for discussing the prehistoric chronology of the project area. However,
the established chronologies are often augmented or even abandoned. For example, Fagan
(2003) does not use the traditional archaeological cultural sequences for his regional analysis,
instead he describes the stages as generalized models related to recent environmental change
and socio-economic models, all associated with an ever-changing environment. Thusly, it
should be noted that all of the presented cultural sequences are regularly challenged, as are the
meanings of the individual frames of reference. Wallace’s prehistoric format is as follows:
Early Period (before 6000 B.C.)
Millingstone Period (6000 to 3000 B.C.)
Intermediate Period (3000 B.C. to A.D. 500)
Late Prehistoric Period (A.D. 500 to A.D. 1769)
Wallace also argued (Wallace, in Heizer 1978) that the stages prior to 2000 B.C. in southern
California could be assigned to:
San Dieguito Period (Period I: 9000 to 6000 B.C.)
Standard Millingstone Period (Period II: 6000 to 3000 B.C.)
Modified Millingstone Period (Period III: 3000 to 2000 B.C.)
Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
Highland, San Bernardino County, CA December 2017
GSPI-05-646.ARS1 8 L&L
Warren (1968) uses the following terms to subdivide the periods:
San Dieguito Tradition (before 5500 B.C.)
Encinitas Tradition (5500 B.C. to A.D. 600)
Shoshonean Tradition (A.D. 600 to A.D. 1769)
2.1.1) Early Period (before 6000 B.C.)
Beginning with the first human presence in California, prehistoric artifacts and cultural activities
appear to represent a big-game hunting tradition. Very few sites from the Early Period exist,
especially in inland areas. Of the Early Period sites that have been excavated and dated, most
exhibit a refuse assemblage suggesting short-term occupation. Such sites have been detected
in caves and around fluvial lakes fed by streams that existed near the end of the last glaciation.
Chipped stone tools at these sites are surmised to reflect a specialized tool kit used by hunters.
Large-stemmed bifaces are common. Millingstones and dart points are not part of the Early
Period tool assemblage.
2.1.2) Millingstone Period (6000 to 3000 B.C.)
Characterized by the appearance of handstones and millingstones, the onset of the Millingstone
Period appears to correspond with an interval of warm and dry weather known as the
Altithermal (Wallace 1978). Artifact assemblages begin to reflect an emphasis on plant foods
and foraging subsistence systems, as evidenced by the grinding tools found at these sites.
Assemblages also include choppers and scraper planes; however, there is a reduced number of
large bifaces. Sites are occupied for a greater duration than Early Period sites, based on an
increase in occupational debris. The distribution of millingstone sites reflects the theory that
groups may have followed a modified central-based wandering settlement pattern. In this semi-
sedentary pattern a base camp would have been occupied for a portion of the year, but small
population groups seasonally occupied subsidiary camps in order to exploit resources not
generally available near the base camp. Sedentism apparently increased in areas possessing
an abundance of resources that were available for longer periods. More arid inland regions
would have provided a seasonally dispersed resource base, restricting sedentary occupation.
2.1.3) Intermediate Period (3000 B.C. to A.D. 500)
Dating between roughly 3000 B.C. and A.D. 500, the Intermediate Period represents a slow
technological transition, which is presumably related to the slowly drying and warming climate.
Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
Highland, San Bernardino County, CA December 2017
GSPI-05-646.ARS1 9 L&L
Site artifact assemblages retain many attributes of the Millingstone Period. Technologically,
these sites are difficult to distinguish from earlier sites in the absence of radiometric dates.
Additionally, these sites generally contain a reduced number of large-stemmed or notched
projectile points, but there is an increase in portable mortars and pestles. The lack of large
points, combined with the mortars and pestles, suggest that the indigenous populations may
have preferred harvesting, processing, and consuming acorns and other seeds over hunting.
Due to a general lack of data, neither the settlement and subsistence systems nor the cultural
evolution of this period are well understood. It has been proposed by some researchers that
group sedentism increased with the exploitation of storable, high-yield plant food resources,
such as acorns. The duration and intensity of occupation at base camps increased during this
period, especially in the later part of the period.
2.1.4) Late Prehistoric Period (A.D. 500 to A.D. 1769)
Extending from about A.D. 500 to Spanish contact in A.D. 1769, the Late Prehistoric Period
reflects an increased sophistication and diversity in technology. Cultural complexes appeared
that have modern ethnographic counterparts. Occupation sites consisted of major villages with
cemeteries, as well as “special purpose” and seasonal sites. Village sites are common. Late
assemblages characteristically contain small projectile or dart points, which imply the use of the
bow and arrow. Use of bedrock milling stations is purported to have been widespread during
this period, as it was in the previous period. Increased hunting efficiency and widespread
exploitation of acorns provided reliable and storable food resources. Desert series projectile
points, buffware and brownware ceramics, shell, steatite beads, slate pendants, incised stones,
and milling tools constitute the tool assemblage. Regional differences, such as Cottonwood
Projectile Points, were common and the use of obsidian increased in some areas and
decreased in others.
2.2) Ethnographic Setting
The project area is located in an ethnographic transition region adjacent to the borders of the
Traditional Use Areas (TUAs) of the Gabrieliño (Tongva), Cahuilla, and Serrano (Highland
2006). Tribal boundaries were likely very fluid in this area, allowing for the exchange of ideas
and technology among these groups. The project area is situated near the far northeastern
edge of an area that is associated with the Gabrieliño (Tongva) (Bean and Smith 1978), along
the far northwestern extent of an area that is associated with the Cahuilla (Bean 1978), and at
the southern edge of an area that is associated with the Serrano (Heizer 1978). Gabrieliño
tribal territory is mapped as extending north from Aliso Creek to just beyond Topanga Canyon
Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
Highland, San Bernardino County, CA December 2017
GSPI-05-646.ARS1 10 L&L
along the Pacific Coast and inland to the City of San Bernardino (Bean and Smith 1978). The
Cahuilla northern border trends to the southeast along the southern margin of the San
Bernardino Mountains from near the modern City of Riverside in the west (Bean 1978). Serrano
lands are mapped as encompassing the San Bernardino Mountains from the Cajon Pass in the
west to beyond modern Twentynine Palms in the east and from about Victorville in the north to
near the San Gorgonio Pass in the south (Heizer 1978). The following sections provide brief
summaries of these tribal groups.
2.2.1) Gabrieliño (Tongva)
Kroeber (1925) and Bean and Smith (1978) form the primary historical references for the
Gabrieliño (Tongva). The arrival of Spanish explorers and the establishment of missions and
outposts during the 18th century ended the prehistoric period in California. At this time,
traditional Gabrieliño society began to fragment as a result of foreign diseases and the mass
removal of local Native American groups to the Mission San Gabriel and Mission San Juan
Capistrano.
The Gabrieliño spoke a language that belongs to the Cupan group of the Takic subfamily of the
Uto-Aztecan language family (a language family that includes the Shoshonean groups of the
Great Basin). The total Gabrieliño population in about A.D. 1770 was roughly 5,000 persons,
based on an estimate of 100 small villages, with approximately 50 to 200 people per village.
Their range is generally thought to have been located along the Pacific coast from Malibu to
San Pedro Bay, south to Aliso Creek, east to Temescal Canyon, then north to the headwaters of
the San Gabriel River. Also included were several islands, such as Catalina. This large area
encompasses the City of Los Angeles, much of Rancho Cucamonga, Corona, Glendale, Long
Beach, and San Dimas. By 1800, most traditional Gabrieliños had either been killed or
subjugated by the Spanish.
The first modern social analyses of Gabrieliño culture took place in the early part of the 20th
century (Kroeber 1925). By this time, acculturation and disease had devastated this group, and
the population studied was a remnant of their pre-contact form. Nonetheless, the early
ethnographers viewed the Gabrieliño as a chief-oriented society of semi-sedentary hunter-
gatherers. Influenced by coastal and interior environmental settings, their material culture was
quite elaborate and consisted of well-made wood, bone, stone, and shell items.
Located in an area of extreme environmental diversity, large villages may have been
permanent, such as that found on or near Red Hill in Rancho Cucamonga, with satellite villages
Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
Highland, San Bernardino County, CA December 2017
GSPI-05-646.ARS1 11 L&L
utilized seasonally. Their living structures were large, domed, and circular thatched rooms that
may have housed multiple families. The society exhibited ranked individuals, possibly chiefs,
who possessed a much higher level of economic power than unranked persons.
2.2.2) Cahuilla
The Cahuilla TUA is vast, with borders extending southeast from the modern City of Riverside in
the north to Borrego Springs in the south. From Borrego Springs, the border trends east below
the Santa Rosa Mountains, bisecting the Salton Sea, and further inland past the Chocolate
Mountains. The Cahuilla northern border then trends southeast from near the modern City of
Riverside in the west, along the southern margin of the San Bernardino Mountains, to beyond
the Chocolate Mountains in the east (Bean 1978).
The Cahuilla belong to the Shoshonean linguistic family and have had definitive historical
relationships with the Hopi of Arizona, the Gabrieliño, and Digueño of the southern California
coast and the Luiseño of Riverside County, as well as other desert tribes such as the Kamia,
Chemehuevi, Paiute, and Serrano. The Cahuilla population prior to Spanish contact could have
been as numerous as 6,000 persons in an area encompassing more than 2,400 square miles
(Bean 1978; Bean and Saubel 1979; Strong 1972).
Villages were determined according to their proximity to a defined water source and access to a
food-gathering locale. Village sites were usually located near alluvial fans, streams, or at the
base of mountains for protection against the winds. In the desert, some settlements were
located around hand dug wells and watering holes. The Cahuilla can be discussed according to
their primary village locality: Desert Cahuilla, Mountain Cahuilla, and Valley Cahuilla. Typically,
a clan or family occupied several food-gathering locations and guarded these areas against
other Cahuilla clans (Bean 1972 and 1978; Oswalt 1988; Strong 1972).
Cahuilla homes were generally constructed with forked posts, which supported wood ceiling
beams. These structures were completely covered in thatch, which was slightly mixed with
sand or soil. In some cases, the floor was slightly subterranean and each house was positioned
so that a level of privacy was attained (Bean 1978; Kroeber and Hooper 1978). Wilke (1978)
notes that the Cahuilla homes were generally hidden in mesquite groves, which effectively
obscured them from plain view.
Ceremony and ritual was of great importance to the Cahuilla (Bean 1978). Deep ceremonial
ties existed between the Serrano and the Cahuilla, and it is thought that the Desert Cahuilla
Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
Highland, San Bernardino County, CA December 2017
GSPI-05-646.ARS1 12 L&L
may have adopted certain ceremonial practices from the Serrano. Frequently practiced
ceremonies include multiple rituals for the mourning of the dead, the eagle dance, summer and
winter solstice celebrations, and separate initiation rites for boys and girls (Strong 1972).
2.2.3) Serrano
The Serrano TUA is mapped as encompassing the San Bernardino Mountains from the Cajon
Pass in the west to beyond modern Twentynine Palms in the east and from about Victorville in
the north to near the San Gorgonio Pass in the south (Bean and Smith 1978). However, these
borders are ill defined due to a lack of reliable data and to the Serrano sociopolitical
organization. The Serrano were organized into autonomous lineages occupying defined
territories; however, these groups rarely identified a permanent habitation site. These groups
were neither politically aligned, nor were they socially connected outside of each localized
lineage (Strong 1972). For these reasons, the borders of the arbitrarily grouped Serrano
peoples would vary greatly from lineage to lineage, depending upon their respective worldviews.
Studies on linguistic characteristics have indicated that the term Serrano had been academically
applied to four (4) different groups, including the Serrano, Kitanemuk, Vanyume, and the
Tataviam (Alliklik) (Bean and Smith 1978; Johnston 1965). The Vanyume use area has been
mapped to the north of Victorville, extending from the Cajon Pass in the west, to near modern
Ludlow between the Cady and Bristol Mountains (Bean and Smith 1978). The Kitanemuk and
Tataviam are found within the general vicinity of the Tehachapi Mountains.
The Serrano generally spoke a language that also belongs to the Cupan group of the Takic
subfamily of the Uto-Aztecan language family, a language family that includes the Shoshonean
groups of the Great Basin. The total Serrano population at contact was roughly 2,000 persons.
The range of this group was limited and restricted by reliable water sources.
The Spanish decimated all indigenous groups adjacent to the San Bernardino Mountains, but
some Serrano survived for many years. This was due to the ruggedness of the terrain in the far
eastern San Bernardino Mountains and to their dispersed population. Serrano populations
studied in the early part of the last century were a remnant of their cultural form prior to contact
with the Spanish Missionaries. Nonetheless, the Serrano are viewed as clan and moiety-
oriented or local lineage-oriented group tied to traditional territories or use-areas. Typically, a
“village” consisted of a collection of families centered about a ceremonial house, with individual
families inhabiting willow-framed huts with tule thatching. Considered hunter-gatherers, the
Serrano exhibited a sophisticated technology devoted to hunting small animals and gathering
Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
Highland, San Bernardino County, CA December 2017
GSPI-05-646.ARS1 13 L&L
roots, tubers, and seeds of various kinds. Today, Serrano descendants are found mostly on the
Morongo and San Manuel reservations. The term Morongo is derived from Maringa, which is a
shortened form of Maringayam. This term is applied to the easternmost division of the Serrano
peoples and is a generic term that incorporates all the families and lineages in the general area,
including the Tumukvayam in Banning Water Canyon and Tamianutcem at Twentynine Palms
(Johnston 1965).
2.3) Historic Setting
The historic period (post-contact) in southern California is commonly presented in terms of
Spanish, Mexican, and American political domination. Certain themes are common to all
periods, such as the development of transportation, military activities, settlement, and
agriculture.
2.3.1) Spanish Period (1769 to 1821)
The first Europeans to travel in the vicinity of the project area were Spanish soldier Pedro Fages
and Father Francisco Garcés. This expedition to locate deserting soldiers brought the group
through the foothills of the San Jacinto Mountains and along Coyote Canyon on the southern
edge of Riverside County. They then continued into the Anza Valley, the San Jacinto Valley,
Riverside, and eventually into San Bernardino and the Cajon Pass. Such expeditions sparked
an influx of non-natives to southern California and the first of these groups were the Spanish.
Associated with the Spanish migration is the establishment of missions and military presidios
along the coast of California. Between 1769 and 1823, Spanish explorers and missionaries
established 21 missions, four (4) presidios, and four (4) pueblos between San Diego and
Sonoma (Bean and Rawls 1983). Although none of the missions were located within modern
San Bernardino County, their influence was far-reaching. Lands within the southwestern portion
of modern San Bernardino County were utilized for agriculture and pasturage under the
supervision of the Mission San Gabriel (Redlands 1995).
Beginning in the late 18th century, the missions began establishing Ranchos for the purpose of
expanding their agricultural holdings. The establishment of the Ranchos is important to the
development of the area as a center of mission activity for inland southern California and it
encouraged population expansion into the region. Modern Highland is situated at the eastern
edge of the San Bernardino Valley and the valley includes substantial acreage affiliated with the
Rancho San Bernardino established by the Mission San Gabriel (Redlands 1995; ECORP
2006a).
Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
Highland, San Bernardino County, CA December 2017
GSPI-05-646.ARS1 14 L&L
In 1819, the Rancho San Bernardino was formally established. This followed a decision by the
heads of the mission system to expand their agricultural holdings into the interior and later
establish a chain of additional missions in the desert region (Harley 1989). A decision was
made to create an estancia, or a ranch headquarters, with a chapel that was occasionally visited
by church fathers at the Guachama Ranchería. However, local Native American attacks forced
the estancia overseers to move the headquarters from the original site to a better-protected
location. The San Bernardino Asistencia was located on high ground approximately 1.50 miles
to the east-southeast of the original estancia. Construction began about 1830 and was not yet
finished when the project was abandoned in 1834 (Lugo 1950). The San Bernardino Asistencia
(36-17534/36-2307/CA-SBR-2307H) is located approximately five (5) miles to the southwest of
the project area and is listed as California Historic Landmark (CHL)-42.
2.3.2) Mexican Period (1821 to 1848)
By the early decades of the 19th century, the growth of Spanish California had come to a halt.
Embroiled in the Napoleonic wars and a subsequent struggle to evade French rule, Spain was
unable to effectively rule its North American colonies. In 1821, and after more than a decade of
revolutionary struggle, Mexico achieved independence from Spain and California became a
distant outpost of the Mexican Republic. Following Mexican Independence, the secularization
of the missions and the mission holdings took place over the next decade and the former
mission lands were transferred to prominent Mexican families. In 1842, the Lugo family
received a land grant from the Mexican government for portions of the San Bernardino and
Yucaipa Valleys. They occupied a large house and several other buildings that had been
constructed at the San Bernardino Asistencia (Lugo 1950; Redlands 1995). The Highland area
was not included in the land grant; however, the San Bernardino grant was located to the west
of the project area and it included modern San Bernardino and Redlands (ECORP 2006a).
2.3.3) American Period (1848 to Present)
The Mexican Period formally ends in 1848, following the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe
Hidalgo. This event marked the end of the Mexican-American War and ceded the northern
provinces of Mexico to the United States. The following decades saw an influx of American
settlers to the region, sparked by the discovery of gold, agricultural possibilities, and land
speculation. Mexican ranchos were subdivided or sold during this period, and much of the land
that once constituted rancho holdings became available for settlement by immigrants to
California.
Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
Highland, San Bernardino County, CA December 2017
GSPI-05-646.ARS1 15 L&L
Some of the first settlers in the area that would become known as East Highlands were
members of the Cram family, including John, Lewis, and Henry Cram. They established their
homesteads in the late 1850s and the area was initially named Cramville. Shortly after their
arrival, they began experimenting with citrus agriculture and their efforts proved so profitable
that other farmers in the region also began to plant orchards (Gallegos & Associates 1993;
ECORP 2006a; Donahue and Suttle 2017; Quales n.d.)
By 1858, there was an increasing need for water to irrigate crops and the Cram family joined the
Van Leuven family to excavate the Cram-Van Leuven Ditch. Stretching several miles from the
Santa Ana River to their lands in Cramville, the ditch was the first large-scale water diversion
project in the area and it lead to the establishment of citrus as the dominant crop in the
Cramville region (Gallegos & Associates 1993; Highland 2006; San Bernardino 2017). This
ditch is mapped as trending east-west through the central portion of the project area and it
extends beyond the project area boundaries (36-6848/CA-SBR-6848H). Over the ensuing
decades, the Cram-Van Leuven Ditch was continually altered and modified. It was enlarged
after a flooding event in 1862 and a north trending extension was added that connected to the
North Fork Ditch. This extension passed through the East Highlands Ranch founded by James
S. Edwards (Gallegos & Associates 1993; ECORP 2006a).
In the 1870s, Edwards devised a plan to acquire property, access water, and further expand the
citrus industry. He established the East Highlands Orange Company (EHOC) in 1893 and
immediately embarked upon a process of community development and an expansion of the
irrigation system. The success of the EHOC soon lead to the end of Cramville and the
establishment of the Community of East Highlands (Gallegos & Associates 1993; ECORP
2006a).
During the 20th century, suburbanization of the area began to occur as early as 1943. This
coincided with the establishment of the San Bernardino Army Air Depot, which is now the San
Bernardino International Airport. Through this process, citrus groves were removed and
replaced with residential housing and packing houses were converted to industrial uses. This
change in land use occurred throughout Highland, but was slower to occur at East Highlands
Ranch. The ranch lands remained primarily rural and devoted to the cultivation of citrus until the
1980s. In 1987, the Communities of East Highland, West Highland, and Highland incorporated
to create the City of Highland (ECORP 2006a; Highland 2006).
Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
Highland, San Bernardino County, CA December 2017
GSPI-05-646.ARS1 16 L&L
2.4) History of the Cram-Van Leuven Ditch
Following the initial settlement of the East Highlands area and in an effort to irrigate crops and
procure drinking water, Lewis F. Cram, Henry Cram, John Cram, and Frederick Van Leuven
built an irrigation ditch in May of 1858 (DeWitt, et al. vs Van Leuven, et al. 1860; Beattie 1951;
Atchley 2017; Quales n.d.) This ditch was initially called the Mesa Ditch, but it was later known
as the Cram-Van Leuven Ditch (Atchley 2017). The head of the ditch was located at the mouth
of the Santa Ana River canyon and it extended to City Creek (Beattie 1951). The initial
construction likely included some digging at the mouth of the canyon for a diversion, but then it
followed a natural overflow of the river to the lands located to the east of modern Merris Street.
Thereafter, more digging was likely, following the contour of the land situated below the mesa
(Atchley 2017).
The beginning of the Cram-Van Leuven Ditch was located upstream from the original
headworks of the existing North Fork Ditch and the Timber Ditch. The diversion of water to the
Cram-Van Leuven Ditch reduced the river flow to the other ditches and at times, there was an
insufficient flow of water to satisfy the needs of the North Fork and Timber Ditches (Beattie
1951; Scott 1977). By August of 1860, the competition for water from the Santa Ana River
amongst the existing ditches elicited a lawsuit. This suit was filed by the majority owners of the
Timber Ditch against the owners of the Cram-Van Leuven Ditch (DeWitt, et al. vs Van Leuven,
et al. 1860; Beattie 1951). The suit did not go to trial; rather, it was settled by a compromise
court judgment on June 18, 1861. This judgment gave the owners of the Cram-Van Leuven
Ditch a right to one-sixth of the river flow at the mouth of the canyon (Hall 1888; Beattie 1951;
Atchley 2017; Quales n.d.) This suit was the first water right in the Santa Ana River basin to be
adjudicated by a court (Beattie 1951).
A disastrous flood occurred in 1862 and this event had a significant effect on the San
Bernardino Valley and the Santa Ana River. Prior to the flood, the river was a well-defined and
narrow channel and it was lined with alder, cottonwood, sycamore, and willow trees. The flood
uprooted and washed away the trees and deposited sand, gravel, and boulders in the riverbed
and on adjacent lands (Beattie 1951). Following the flood, the river failed to follow a well-
defined course and it flowed through several channels below the mouth of the canyon. This
area was located upstream from the common point of diversion for the North Fork and Timber
Ditches and the new river channels resulted in a significant water deficiency for the ditches
(Scott 1977; Quales n.d.)
Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
Highland, San Bernardino County, CA December 2017
GSPI-05-646.ARS1 17 L&L
As a result of the water deficiency after the flood of 1862, the North Fork Ditch owners decided
to extend the ditch to a new heading nearer the mouth of the canyon. They decided that the
most economical manner to accomplish this task would be to use the existing Cram-Van Leuven
Ditch. In 1865, they requested permission from the owners of the Cram-Van Leuven Ditch for a
connection to be constructed between the two (2) ditches. As part of the agreement, the North
Fork Ditch offered to enlarge the Cram-Van Leuven Ditch and share operating expenses
(Beattie 1951; Scott 1977; Quales n.d.) Thus, the ditch was enlarged, a connection was
completed to the east of the City Creek Wash (see Figure 8), and from this time the North Fork
Ditch and the Cram-Van Leuven Ditch diverted water via a common point at the mouth of the
canyon (Scott 1977). As a result of this development, the Cram-Van Leuven Ditch located
upstream from the connection with North Fork Ditch also became known as North Fork Ditch
(Hall 1888; Scott 1977). During the ensuing years, the ditches were extended and new
distributaries were built as irrigation needs increased and water-rights were divided and sold
(Hall 1888).
Throughout the late 1860s and 1870s, agricultural development continued to occur in the San
Bernardino Valley. The lands between Base Line Road and City Creek were planted in
deciduous fruits and other crops, such that the majority of the land in this area was under
cultivation during the early 1880s (Scott 1977). In 1879, E. G. Judson and Frank E. Brown
became interested in the potential of the land above the Cram-Van Leuven Ditch and the North
Fork Ditch for growing oranges. They also built a fruit dryer near the Cram Homestead (36-
4220/CA-SBR-4220H/CPHI-31) and began working with peaches, apricots, and some apples
(Beattie 1951; Quales n.d.) Judson and Brown then purchased the claims of settlers living near
Plunge Creek and secured options on other parcels of land in the vicinity. To bring water to the
benchland, Judson and Brown met several times with owners of the North Fork and Cram-Van
Leuven Ditches and offered to build a new high-line ditch at a cost of $1,000. The North Fork
Ditch owners opposed the plan, but by 1880, several benchland area owners had purchased
lowland water rights and requested the transfer of those rights to the benchland. In the spring of
1881, Judson and Brown and the owners of North Fork Ditch rights signed an agreement,
exclusive of the Cram-Van Leuven owners (Hall 1888; Scott 1977). This agreement allowed for
the construction of a high-line ditch to serve the benchlands, which would become known as the
North Fork Canal (Scott 1977; Quales n.d.)
Construction of the North Fork Canal commenced in 1881 and it was completed in early 1882.
The canal departed from the original Cram-Van Leuven Ditch approximately four (4) miles to the
east of the project area (see Figure 8; Scott 1977; Quales n.d.) After this point, the Cram-Van
Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
Highland, San Bernardino County, CA December 2017
GSPI-05-646.ARS1 18 L&L
Leuven Ditch owners ran their water in the new high-line canal built by Judson and Brown to a
point called the Cram and Van Leuven Divide. The divide was located about four (4) miles
below the mouth of the canyon and from this point, they built a connecting ditch to their old ditch
located below the bench (Beattie 1951). The Cram-Van Leuven Divide or the connecting line of
1882-1883 (36-6850/CA-SBR-6850H) is located to the west of the project area. The advent of
the high-line ditch rendered a portion of the Cram-Van Leuven Ditch unnecessary for watering
lands in the area. Specifically, the segment located between the North Fork Canal departure in
the east and the Cram-Van Leuven Divide in the west became unnecessary. Thus, once the
North Fork Canal was built and after about 1881, only the Cram-Van Leuven Divide was needed
to bring water to the East 3rd Street lands (Atchley 2017).
In the following years, numerous changes occurred with regard to the owners of the Santa Ana
River water-rights and the control of the water flows. In 1885, the North Fork owners chose to
incorporate their water rights and they established the North Fork Water Company (Beattie
1951). The Cram-Van Leuven Ditch owners were not included in this deal and they instead
remained affiliated with the portion located upstream from the North Fork Canal (Quales n.d.) In
September of 1883, the Bear Valley Land and Water Company was established and they
gained control of the Santa Ana River water. The Big Bear Dam was constructed in 1884 and
this affected those with water-rights in the North and South Fork due to the availability of water
distribution. Thereafter, an agreement was signed between the North Fork Water Company, the
Cram-Van Leuven owners, and the Bear Valley Land and Water Company on May 5, 1885. In
this agreement, the amount of water received for the entire year was set and it provided the first
definite schedule for water users measured in inches of water (Beattie 1951). In this manner,
the North Fork was able to secure their water supply in relatively dry months and 50 percent
more land was able to be irrigated than before the agreement (Quales n.d.)
Eventually, the Cram and Van Leuven interests incorporated into a separate company in 1890
and they continued to operate for the next 35 years. In March of 1925, the Cram-Van Leuven
owners moved to completely merge with the North Fork Water Company and all Cram-Van
Leuven stock was transferred to the North Fork (Beattie 1951; Quales n.d.) Thus, while the
necessity waned for the central portion of the Cram-Van Leuven Ditch after about 1881, its
construction allowed for the importation of water to the Cramville/East Highlands area and
directly affected the development patterns through an increase in water availability and
reliability.
Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
Highland, San Bernardino County, CA December 2017
GSPI-05-646.ARS1 19 L&L
2.5) Location of the Cram-Van Leuven Ditch in the Vicinity of the Project Area
The Cram-Van Leuven Ditch (36-6848/CA-SBR-6848H) was first identified in the project area by
Gallegos & Associates in 1993 (see Figure 11; Gallegos & Associates 1993). This identification
was based on the mapping of the Old North Fork Ditch in the project area on the USGS 1899
Redlands, CA map (see Figure 7). However, determining the actual location of the Cram-Van
Leuven Ditch as constructed in 1858; its configurations when upgraded, as needed; its later
permutations when combined with the North Fork Ditch; and where the ditch was located after it
fell out of necessary use post-1881 is a complicated endeavor. This is due to a lack of maps
dating to the period of initial construction, an extensive flooding event in 1862 that changed the
flow of the Santa Ana River and affected the ditch, and an additional heavy flooding event in
1867. In addition, there is a time delay between the date when portions of the ditch became
unnecessary and were effectively replaced by the high-line North Fork Canal (about 1881) and
the earliest available maps showing the ditch (late 1880s and early 1890s).
In an effort to identify the location of the Cram-Van Leuven Ditch in Section 2 of Township 1
South, Range 3 West, L&L contacted several local libraries and historians to obtain maps and
information. While there is no map associated with the ditch on-file at the San Bernardino
County Historical Archives (SB County 2017), L&L did obtain numerous maps of irrigation
features in the Highland area from other resources. The earliest available map dates to 1888
and consists of the San Bernardino Sheet of an irrigation map prepared by the California State
Engineering Department. This map depicts the Old North Fork Ditch in the immediate vicinity of
the project area. The Old North Fork Ditch is an alternative name for the Cram-Van Leuven
Ditch and refers to the combined ditch that existed following the flood of 1862 and after the two
(2) ditches were connected in 1865 (Scott 1977). In the 1888 map, the Old North Fork Ditch is
shown to the north of the project area. This map additionally shows a very short segment of a
ditch labeled as the C.&V.L. Ditch to the west of the project area and within the City Creek
Wash (CSED 1888; Figure 5).
A map dating to 1891 and depicting irrigation systems in the east end of the San Bernardino
Valley was obtained from the HAHS collection of research resources on water history. This
map is similar to the 1888 map and it shows the Old North Fork Ditch to the north of the project
area. This map additionally depicts a drainage feature traversing the northern edge of the
project area (HAHS 2017; Figure 6).
L&L also reviewed numerous archival aerial photographs and topographic maps (NETR 2017).
Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
Highland, San Bernardino County, CA December 2017
GSPI-05-646.ARS1 20 L&L
The earliest maps date to the late 1800s and the very early 1900s. In 1895, the ditch is not
shown or labeled and instead, a water feature is depicted that traverses the project area and
extends between Plunge Creek in the north and the Santa Ana River in the south (NETR 2017).
The next available topographic map is the USGS 1899 Redlands, CA map. On this map, the
Old North Fork Ditch is shown trending much further south than on the 1888 and 1891 irrigation
maps and it is depicted as extending into the project area (Figure 7). This map represents the
first time that the ditch is shown in the project area on a primary resource. This map may show
a mapping error or an altered path or flow for the Old North Fork Ditch, as this map was
generated almost 20 years after the ditch went out of necessary use post-1881. The ditch
continues to be observable on topographic maps until 1955, when the ditch is no longer
depicted and an unnamed, blue-line water feature is shown trending east-west across the
northern edge of the project area. The water feature that has been recorded as 36-6848/CA-
SBR-6848H appears on topographic maps beginning in 1969 and is observable on aerial
photographs as early as 1938 (NETR 2017).
Several reports were also obtained during the research for 36-6848/CA-SBR-6848H that contain
maps. In 1977, M. B. Scott compiled a history of water facilities in the Santa Ana River Basin.
In this document, he produced a map documenting ditches and canals at the eastern end of the
San Bernardino Valley that was based on the compilation of his research on water companies,
diversions, and water rights. According to this map, the Cram-Van Leuven Ditch extends from
the Santa Ana Canyon, to the Cram homestead in Section 3 (36-4220/CA-SBR-4220H/CPHI-
31), and on to City Creek Wash. The ditch was connected to the North Fork Ditch after the
flood of 1862 and at a point located immediately to the east of City Creek Wash. In the vicinity
of the project area, the original Cram-Van Leuven Ditch (1858) is mapped as trending east-west
to the north of modern Greenspot Road and to the north of the project area (Scott 1977; Figure
8).
Another map available from the HAHS shows the location of canals and ditches used in the
early development of the east San Bernardino Valley water supply. This map informs t he
research work completed by K. Quales (n.d.) for the North Fork Canal and does not appear to
have a date. This map depicts the Cram-Van Leuven Ditch and the later North Fork Extension
to the north of Greenspot Road (Quales n.d.; Figure 9). However, this map is potentially
problematic because it depicts Greenspot Road connecting into 3rd Street, rather than
connecting into 5th Street. For this reason, it is difficult to ascertain the exact placement of the
project area on this map.
Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
Highland, San Bernardino County, CA December 2017
GSPI-05-646.ARS1 21 L&L
Figure 5
1888 Detail Irrigation Map, San
Bernardino Sheet
CSED 1888 (California State Engineering Department [CSED]. 1888.
Detail Irrigation Map, San Bernardino Sheet. On-file at the A. K.
Smiley Library Heritage Room, Redlands, California.)
Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
City of Highland
San Bernardino County, California
L&L Environmental, Inc.
BIOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL
INVESTIGATIONS AND MONITORING
GSPI-05-646
December 2017
Project Area
Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
Highland, San Bernardino County, CA December 2017
GSPI-05-646.ARS1 22 L&L
Figure 6
1891 Irrigation Systems Map
HAHS 2017 (Highland Area Historical Society [HAHS]. 2017. Research
Resources of Water History in the Highland Area. Website accessed October
2017. http://www.highlandhistory.org/waterhistory.php)
Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
City of Highland
San Bernardino County, California
L&L Environmental, Inc.
BIOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL
INVESTIGATIONS AND MONITORING
GSPI-05-646
December 2017
Project Area
Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
Highland, San Bernardino County, CA December 2017
GSPI-05-646.ARS1 23 L&L
Figure 7
USGS 1899 Redlands, CA
Topographic Map
USGS: https://store.usgs.gov/map-locator
Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
City of Highland
San Bernardino County, California
L&L Environmental, Inc.
BIOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL
INVESTIGATIONS AND MONITORING
GSPI-05-646
December 2017
Project Area
Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
Highland, San Bernardino County, CA December 2017
GSPI-05-646.ARS1 24 L&L
Figure 8
Cram and Van Leuven Ditch
and North Fork Canal Map
Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
City of Highland
San Bernardino County, California
L&L Environmental, Inc.
BIOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL
INVESTIGATIONS AND MONITORING
GSPI-05-646
December 2017
Project Area
Source: Scott 1977 (Scott, M. B. 1977. Development of Water Facilities in the Santa Ana River Basin, California, 1810-
1968: A Compilation of Historical Notes Derived from Many Sources Describing Ditch and Canal Companies, Diversions,
and Water Rights. Report #77-398. On-file at the Feldhym Library California Room, San Bernardino, California.)
Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
Highland, San Bernardino County, CA December 2017
GSPI-05-646.ARS1 25 L&L
Figure 9
Canals and Ditches Map
Quales n.d. (Quales, K. n.d. A Brief History of the North Fork Canal, San
Bernardino, CA. Electronic document accessed October 2017.
http://www.highlandhistory.org/Water_History/Quarles_FinalReport.pdf)
Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
City of Highland
San Bernardino County, California
L&L Environmental, Inc.
BIOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL
INVESTIGATIONS AND MONITORING
GSPI-05-646
December 2017
Project Area (?)
Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
Highland, San Bernardino County, CA December 2017
GSPI-05-646.ARS1 26 L&L
Based on the earliest available maps focused on irrigation features (1888 and 1891), the Old
North Fork Ditch/Cram-Van Leuven Ditch was located in the northern half (N ½) of the southern
half (S ½) of Section 2 of Township 1 South, Range 3 West in the vicinity of the project area.
This places the ditch to the north of modern Greenspot Road and outside the current project
area. Later USGS maps dating to 1899 and into the early 20th century begin to depict the Old
North Fork Ditch in the project area. This may be a mapping error where a drainage feature
was identified as part of the ditch or a more southerly route for this portion of the ditch that came
into use sometime after 1891.
Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
Highland, San Bernardino County, CA December 2017
GSPI-05-646.ARS1 27 L&L
3.0) REGULATORY SETTING AND METHODS
3.1) Regulatory Setting
Government agencies, including federal, state, and local agencies, have developed laws and
regulations designed to protect significant cultural resources that may be affected by projects
regulated, funded, or undertaken by an agency. Under CEQA, public agencies must consider
the effects of their actions on both historical resources and unique archaeological resources.
Pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21084.1, a project that may cause a
substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource is a project that may
have a significant effect on the environment. Section 21083.2 requires agencies to determine
whether proposed projects would have effects on unique archaeological resources.
Historical resource is a term with a defined statutory meaning (see PRC, Section 21084.1 and
CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5(a) and (b)). The term embraces any resource listed in or
determined to be eligible for listing on the CRHR. The CRHR includes resources listed in or
formally determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), as well
as some CHLs and California Points of Historical Interest (CPHIs).
Properties of local significance that have been designated under a local preservation ordinance
(local landmarks or landmark districts) or that have been identified in a local historical resources
inventory may be eligible for listing in the CRHR and are presumed to be historical resources for
purposes of CEQA unless a preponderance of evidence indicates otherwise (PRC, Section
5024.1 and California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 4850). Unless a resource listed in
a survey has been demolished, lost substantial integrity, or there is a preponderance of
evidence indicating that it is otherwise not eligible for listing, a lead agency should consider the
resource to be potentially eligible for the CRHR.
In addition to assessing whether historical resources potentially impacted by a proposed project
are listed or have been identified in a survey process, lead agencies have a responsibility to
evaluate them against the CRHR criteria prior to making a finding as to a proposed project’s
impacts to historical resources (PRC, Section 21084.1 and CEQA Guidelines, Section
15064(a)(3)). The following criteria were used to evaluate the significance of potential impacts
to cultural resources for the proposed project. An impact would be considered significant if the
proposed project affects the qualities that render a resource eligible for listing in the NRHP or
the CRHR.
Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
Highland, San Bernardino County, CA December 2017
GSPI-05-646.ARS1 28 L&L
3.1.1) Federal Significance Criteria
Evaluation of a resource for listing on the NRHP requires that specific elements be addressed:
the criteria of significance and the integrity of the property.
Regulations found in Title 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 60.4 list the criteria for
evaluating site significance for listing on the NRHP. Following the standards and guidelines,
resources are considered significant if they meet at least one (1) of four (4) significance criteria
(A-D), retain integrity, and are at least 50 years old. In rare cases, sites may be considered
significant if they are of exceptional value and do not meet any other requirements. The criteria
for determining the significance of a property are as follows:
The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and
culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of
location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and:
A. That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad
patterns of our history; or
B. That are associated with the lives of significant persons in our past; or
C. That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction,
or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that
represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual
distinction; or
D. That have yielded or may be likely to yield information important in prehistory or history.
In addition to meeting one (1) of the significance criteria listed above, a property must also
demonstrate a sufficient degree of integrity so that it is capable of conveying such significance
(Hardesty and Little 2000). The seven (7) elements of integrity identified by the NRHP include
location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association (NPS 1991).
3.1.2) State Significance Criteria
Given that the CRHR was modeled after the NRHP, it has very similar eligibility criteria.
Generally, to be considered significant under CEQA, a resource must possess integrity and
demonstrate eligibility under at least one of the following criteria (California Code of Regulations
15064.5):
1. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad
patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage;
Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
Highland, San Bernardino County, CA December 2017
GSPI-05-646.ARS1 29 L&L
2. Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past;
3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of
construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or
possesses high artistic values; or
4. Has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory
or history of the local area, California, or the nation.
As noted above, CEQA also requires lead agencies to consider whether projects will impact
unique archaeological resources. PRC Section 21083.2(g) states that a unique archaeological
resource is an archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated
that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it
meets any of the following criteria:
Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that
there is a demonstrable public interest in that information;
Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best
available example of its type; or
Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic
event or person.
Treatment options under Section 21083.2 include activities that preserve such resources in
place and in an undisturbed state. Other acceptable methods of mitigation under Section
21083.2 include excavation and curation, or study in place without excavation and curation (if
the study finds that the artifacts would not meet one [1] or more of the criteria for defining a
unique archaeological resource).
3.1.3) Local Regulations
The City of Highland has addressed cultural resources in their Municipal Code and GP
(Highland 2006).
City of Highland Municipal Code
Chapter 16.32 of the Municipal Code addresses Historic and Cultural Preservation in the City,
establishes the Historic and Cultural Preservation Board (Section 16.32.030), and provides the
local criteria for cultural resource designation (Section 16.32.050). Any improvement, natural
feature, or site may be nominated as a cultural resource by the Historic and Cultural
Preservation Board of the City pursuant to Section 16.32.060 if it meets the criteria for listing on
the NRHP or the following:
Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
Highland, San Bernardino County, CA December 2017
GSPI-05-646.ARS1 30 L&L
A. It exemplifies or reflects special elements of the City’s cultural, social, economic, political,
aesthetic, engineering, architectural, or natural history;
B. It is identified with persons or events significant in local, state, or national history;
C. It embodies distinctive characteristics of a style, type, period, or method of construction,
or is a valuable example of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship;
D. It is representative of the work of a notable builder, designer, or architect;
E. It contributes to the significance of an historic area, being a geographically definable area
possessing a concentration of historic or scenic properties or thematically related
grouping of properties which contribute to each other and are unified aesthetically by plan
or physical development;
F. It has a unique location or singular physical characteristics or is a view or vista
representing an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, community, or
the City of Highland;
G. It embodies elements of architectural design, detail, materials, or craftsmanship that
represent a significant structural or architectural achievement or innovation;
H. It is similar to other distinctive properties, sites, areas, or objects based on a historic,
cultural, or architectural motif;
I. It reflects significant geographical patterns, including those associated with different eras
of settlement and growth, particular transportation modes, or distinctive examples of park
or community planning; and/or
J. It is one (1) of the few remaining examples in the City, region, state, or nation possessing
distinguishing characteristics of an architectural or historical type of specimen.
City of Highland General Plan
The GP provides guidance for the preservation of historic built-environment resources in the
Land Use Element, while archaeological resources are addressed in the Conservation and
Open Space Element (Highland 2006). Information about development in and near historic
areas, as well as adaptive reuse of historic structures, can be found in Section 2 of the GP
(Land Use Element) and the City has established the following Goal and Policies for
Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
Highland, San Bernardino County, CA December 2017
GSPI-05-646.ARS1 31 L&L
archaeological resources:
Goal 5.8: Protect, document, and minimize disruption of sites that have archaeological
significance.
Policies
1. Avoid significant impacts in all new developments within areas determined to
be archaeologically sensitive through the following measures:
Conduct an archaeological records search with the Archaeological
Information Center (AIC) [sic] in order to identify potential on-site
sensitivities;
In cooperation with a qualified archaeologist, develop mitigation
measures for projects found to be located in or near sensitive areas or
sites; and
Require that environmental review be conducted for all applications
within the area designated as archaeologically sensitive, including but
not limited to grading, earth moving and stockpiling, and building and
demolition permits.
2. Include the following statement as a condition of approval on all development
projects:
“If cultural resources are discovered during project construction, all
work in the area of the find shall cease, and a qualified archaeologist
shall be retained by the project sponsor to investigate the find, and to
make recommendations on its disposition. If human remains are
encountered during construction, all work shall cease and the San
Bernardino County Coroner’s Office shall be contacted pursuant to
Health and Safety Code provisions.”
3. Coordinate with the SMBMI when proposals for development projects are
filed within the Areas of Sensitivity for Archaeological Resources (Illustrated
in Figure 5.2 of the GP) through the following actions:
Notify the SMBMI via notification mailings about proposed projects in
archaeologically sensitive areas; and
Invite comments and suggestions to be forwarded to City staff and
appropriate decision makers to aid the preservation and development
review processes.
Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
Highland, San Bernardino County, CA December 2017
GSPI-05-646.ARS1 32 L&L
3.2) Methods
The primary purpose of this CRA is to determine whether cultural resources more than 45 years
old are located within or near the project area and whether these resources will be or could be
impacted by the proposed project. To accomplish this, research and a pedestrian survey were
conducted. The results of these efforts assist in determining if resources are present and, if
present, considered eligible for inclusion in the NRHP, CRHR, or local designation. This allows
for the consideration of the impacts of the proposed project on cultural resources, including
resources considered significant under the parameters of the Regulatory Setting. The
assessment included the following tasks:
Review of regional history and previous cultural resource sites and studies within the
project area and the vicinity.
Examination of archival topographic maps and aerial photographs for the project area
and the general vicinity.
Research the Cram-Van Leuven Ditch (36-6848/CA-SBR-6848H) via inquiries for maps
and associated documents at various locations, including local libraries and the San
Bernardino County Archives.
Request of an NAHC SLS for the project area and contact with Tribal groups and
individuals as named by the NAHC.
Notification and information scoping efforts with the SMBMI pursuant to Goal 5.8, Policy
3 of the City of Highland GP, as the project area is located in an Area of Sensitivity for
Archaeological Resources as illustrated in Figure 5.2 of the GP (Highland 2006).
Complete site visits to relocate previously recorded resources in the project area and
collect information for DPR 523 Update Forms.
Conduct a non-collection Phase I pedestrian survey of the project area.
Prepare DPR 523 Update Forms for all previously recorded resources located in the
project area (36-6848/CA-SBR-6848H, 36-6853/CA-SBR-6853H, 36-7434/CA-SBR-
7434H, 36-12264/CA-SBR-12205H, and 36-12265).
Submit all DPR 523 Update Forms to the SCCIC for their files.
Evaluate the potential for the proposed project to result in significant impacts to cultural
resources.
Develop recommendations associated with impacts to cultural resources following the
guidelines as outlined in the Regulatory Setting.
Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
Highland, San Bernardino County, CA December 2017
GSPI-05-646.ARS1 33 L&L
3.2.1) Cultural Resources Records Search
A records search was conducted by L&L Archaeologist William R. Gillean on July 6, 2017 at the
SCCIC (Appendix B). The records search consisted of a check for previously recorded cultural
resource sites and isolates and previous cultural resources studies on or within a one-mile
radius of the project area. In addition, the records search included a review of the NRHP,
Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility (ADOE), and the OHP Historic Property Data File
(HPDF).
3.2.2) Historic Records Review
Information available from the BLM was reviewed, including maps and GLO records pertinent to
the project area (BLM 2017). Archival topographic maps and aerial photographs containing the
project area were also reviewed (NETR 2017). In addition, research was completed for the
Cram-Van Leuven Ditch (36-6848/CA-SBR-6848H) at the A.K. Smiley Library Heritage Room in
Redlands, the Feldhym Library California Room in San Bernardino, the San Bernardino County
Historical Archives, and the HAHS website. L&L also contacted Tom Atchley of the Redlands
Historical Society at the recommendation of staff from the San Bernardino County Historical
Archives. Additional contact was made via email with Nancy Alexander of the HAHS at the
recommendation of Mr. Atchley.
3.2.3) Native American Coordination
A request was sent to the NAHC asking for an SLS and a contacts list on June 28, 2017. A
response was received on June 29, 2017 (Appendix D). The NAHC contacts were sent project
location information and were asked for their potential concerns regarding the project area. The
information scoping packages were sent to the 19 contacts listed by the NAHC on July 6, 2017
(Appendix E). These packages included a letter to the SMBMI in accordance with Goal 5.8,
Policy 3 of the City of Highland GP (Highland 2006). As of the date of this report, one (1)
response has been received from the SMBMI. All L&L coordination efforts are summarized in
Table 3 of this report and copies of correspondence are included in Appendix E.
3.2.4) Pedestrian Survey and Site Visits
The primary purpose of the pedestrian survey is to locate and document previously recorded or
new cultural resource sites or isolates that are more than 45 years old within the project area,
and to determine whether such resources will be or could be impacted by project
Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
Highland, San Bernardino County, CA December 2017
GSPI-05-646.ARS1 34 L&L
implementation. The pedestrian survey was completed on July 18, 2017 via east-west trending
transects at intervals of no more than 15 meters. During the survey, digital photographs and
notes were taken to characterize conditions in the project area.
Previously recorded resource locations for 36-6848/CA-SBR-6848H, 36-6853/CA-SBR-6853H,
36-7434/CA-SBR-7434H, 36-12264/CA-SBR-12205H, and 36-12265 were visited on July 11,
2017 and October 3, 2017 and were documented through photographs and notes. Location
information was also obtained for all resources via Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM), North
American Datum of 1983 (NAD83). Data collected in the field were used to record resources
onto DPR 523 Update Forms.
If previously unrecorded resources were detected during the survey or the site visits, they would
be measured, photographed, and mapped in the field. All data obtained in the field would be
used to record resources onto new DPR 523 Forms.
Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
Highland, San Bernardino County, CA December 2017
GSPI-05-646.ARS1 35 L&L
4.0) RESULTS
4.1) Cultural Resources Records Search
L&L Archaeologist William R. Gillean conducted the records search on July 6, 2017 at the
SCCIC (Appendix B). The records search was completed for the project area and all lands
found within one mile. The results indicated that 100 percent of the project area has been
previously inventoried via two (2) reports (SB-2828/Gallegos & Associates 1993; SB-
5671/ECORP 2006a). In addition, a total of five (5) resources have been mapped within or
partially within the project area:
36-6848/CA-SBR-6848H (Cram-Van Leuven Ditch)
36-6853/CA-SBR-6853H (Historic Refuse Scatter)
36-7434/CA-SBR-7434H (Historic Refuse Dump)
36-12264/CA-SBR-12205H (Historic Refuse Scatter)
36-12265 (Historic Citrus/Poultry Ranching Complex)
The results additionally revealed that a total of 39 resources have been recorded within the one
mile search radius. Of these resources, five (5) are located in the project area, nine (9) are
located within 0.25 mile of the project area, five (5) are located within 0.25 and 0.50 mile of the
project area, and 20 are located between 0.50 mile and one mile of the project area.
The identified resources consist entirely of historic age resources, including 37 historic sites,
structures, and buildings and two (2) historic isolated finds. The resources are predominately
refuse scatters (n=18) and irrigation complexes or features (n=10). The refuse scatters are
generally domestic in nature and consist of cans, ceramics, glass, and other items dating
between the late 1800s and the modern era, while the irrigation complexes include a variety of
ditches, flumes, and other features. Other historic resources consist of refuse scatters in
association with foundation remains (n=2) or in association with irrigation features (n=1); a
bridge (n=1); the remains of agricultural properties with associated residences (n=3); the Cram
Ranch and House location (n=1); and the Cram Schools location (n=1). The isolated finds
consist of a can (n=1) and a fragment of solarized glass (n=1). These previously recorded
resources and their locations relative to the project area are outlined below in Table 1.
Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
Highland, San Bernardino County, CA December 2017
GSPI-05-646.ARS1 36 L&L
Table 1. Previously Recorded Cultural Resources Located Within One Mile of the Project Area
Resource
Number
Recorder
Name and
Date Resource Description
Within
~One
to 0.50
Mile
Radius
Within
~0.50
to 0.25
Mile
Radius
Within
~0.25
Mile
Radius
Within
Project
Area?
36-4220/CA-
SBR-
4220H/CPHI-
31
G. Teal ,1980
Historic: The Cram Ranch and House.
This resource consists of the first
homestead in the East Highlands area,
established by the John Cram family.
The Crams planted the first orange
groves in the Highland area and
assisted in establishing the citrus
industry in the region. The house
reportedly burned down in 1982.
__ __ No
36-6068/CA-
SBR-6068H
R. Hampson, M.
Doyle, R. Brown,
and D. Adams of
Greenwood and
Associates, 1987
Historic: This site consists of a small
scatter of domestic debris. __ __ No
36-6073/CA-
SBR-6073H
Originally
recorded by R.
Hampson, M.
Doyle, and R.
Brown of
Greenwood and
Associates, 1987
Updated by M.
Pritchard-Parker,
H. Peterson, and
A. Delu of LSA
Associates, Inc.
(LSA), 1994 and
D. McDougall and
D. Bircheff of
Applied
EarthWorks, Inc.,
1999
Historic: This site consists of five (5)
historic debris loci possibly associated
with a historic residence or other
structure.
Research completed in 1999 at Loci 1
and 2 indicated that the deposits likely
reflected intermixed and unrelated
materials deposited over several
decades in the 20th century. These
deposits appeared to be the result of
long-term refuse disposal activities in
the area.
__ __ No
36-6074/CA-
SBR-6074H
J. Wishner, R.
Brown, and P.
Easter of
Greenwood and
Associates, 1987
Historic: A single episode domestic
debris disposal consisting of cans,
ceramics, and glass.
__ __ No
36-6075/CA-
SBR-6075H
M. Doyle, D.
Adams, J.
Schmidt, S.
Wakefield, and R.
Brown of
Greenwood and
Associates, 1987
Historic: This site consists of five (5)
concentrations of domestic debris
resulting from multiple dumping
episodes.
__ __ No
36-6076/CA-
SBR-6076H
S. Wakefield, J.
Wishner, D.
Adams, M. Doyle,
R. Brown, R.
Hampson, and J.
Schmidt of
Greenwood and
Associates, 1987
Historic: Three (3) concentrations of
domestic debris resulting from multiple
dumping episodes.
__ __ No
36-6078/CA-
SBR-6078H
G. Romani, J.
Schmidt, S.
Wakefield, P.
Easter, and J.
Wishner of
Greenwood and
Associates, 1987
Historic: A stone foundation with an
associated refuse scatter. The refuse
appears to date to the 1930s and
1940s.
__ __ No
Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
Highland, San Bernardino County, CA December 2017
GSPI-05-646.ARS1 37 L&L
Resource
Number
Recorder
Name and
Date Resource Description
Within
~One
to 0.50
Mile
Radius
Within
~0.50
to 0.25
Mile
Radius
Within
~0.25
Mile
Radius
Within
Project
Area?
36-6079/CA-
SBR-6079H
G. Romani, J.
Schmidt, S.
Wakefield, and J.
Wishner of
Greenwood and
Associates, 1987
Historic: A domestic refuse scatter and
a power pole. The refuse appears to
date between the late 19th century and
early 20th century; however, modern
refuse was also observed at the site.
__ __ No
36-6080/CA-
SBR-6080H
Originally
recorded by G.
Romani, J.
Schmidt, S.
Wakefield, and J.
Wishner of
Greenwood and
Associates, 1987
Updated by A.
Belcourt of ICF
International,
2016
Historic: A domestic debris scatter
consisting of glass, ceramics, and
cans.
This site could not be relocated during
a study completed in 2016.
__ __ No
36-6081/CA-
SBR-6081H
G. Romani, J.
Schmidt, S.
Wakefield, and J.
Wishner of
Greenwood and
Associates, 1987
Historic: A sparse domestic debris
scatter, mainly consisting of cans. __ __ No
36-6082/CA-
SBR-6082H
G. Romani, J.
Schmidt, S.
Wakefield, and J.
Wishner of
Greenwood and
Associates, 1987
Historic: This site consists of a sparse
refuse scatter resulting from a single
dumping episode or short-term
occupation.
__ __ No
36-6083/CA-
SBR-6083H
R. Hampson and
J. Wishner of
Greenwood and
Associates, 1987
Historic: A sparse scatter of domestic
debris dating to the late 19th century
and early 20th century.
__ __ No
36-6087/CA-
SBR-6087H
J. Sorenson, K.
Vander Veen, M.
Imwalle, and G.
Toren of
Greenwood and
Associates, 1987
Historic: Three (3) refuse scatters
containing domestic debris. __ __ No
36-6088/CA-
SBR-6088H
J. Sorenson, K.
Vander Veen, M.
Imwalle, and G.
Toren of
Greenwood and
Associates, 1987
Historic: The remains of a ranch or
homestead. This site includes the
remains of a residence, the foundation
of an outbuilding, walkways, driveways,
and refuse.
__ __ No
36-6089/CA-
SBR-6089H
J. Sorenson, K.
Vander Veen, M.
Imwalle, and G.
Toren of
Greenwood and
Associates, 1987
Historic: A refuse scatter consisting of
cans, ceramics, and glass. __ __ No
36-6848/CA-
SBR-6848H
Originally
recorded by G.
Romani, G. Head,
N. Kaptain, and
T. Webb of
Greenwood and
Associates, 1990
Updated by J.
McKenna of
Historic: The Cram-Van Leuven Ditch.
This resource consists of an irrigation
ditch constructed in 1858 by members
of the Cram and the Van Leuven
families. It connected the mouth of the
Santa Ana Canyon with the Cram and
Van Leuven lands located at the base
of the East Highlands bench. This
ditch was one (1) of the earliest
irrigation systems emerging from the
Yes. This
resource
traverses the
central portion
of the project
area and
trends east-
west. It was
relocated
during the
Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
Highland, San Bernardino County, CA December 2017
GSPI-05-646.ARS1 38 L&L
Resource
Number
Recorder
Name and
Date Resource Description
Within
~One
to 0.50
Mile
Radius
Within
~0.50
to 0.25
Mile
Radius
Within
~0.25
Mile
Radius
Within
Project
Area?
McKenna, et al.,
1992; J. Eighmey,
I. Strudwick, R.
Phillips, P.
McHenry, J.
Boughton, and R.
Collett of
Gallegos &
Associates, 1993;
and R. Mason
and C. Cotterman
of ECORP
Consulting, Inc.
(ECORP), 2006
Santa Ana Canyon. It was also the
subject of the first court decision
addressing water rights in the Upper
Santa Ana River in 1861.
This resource was originally recorded
in 1990 as a segment located to the
west of Church Street and an update
completed in 1992 addresses a
possible portion of the ditch located to
the east of the project area. The
portion of the ditch found in the project
area was addressed by updates
completed in 1993 and 2006. In the
project area, the ditch is described as
unlined and lacking dams or diversions.
In 1993, this resource was described
as damaged by numerous flooding
episodes. Nonetheless, it was
recommended for avoidance during
future development, if feasible.
However, if avoidance was not
possible, then recordation was
considered sufficient to mitigate
impacts and no further work was
recommended (Gallegos & Associates
1993).
This resource was relocated in 2006.
At this time, the ditch was described as
likely eligible for the CRHR under
Criteria 1 and 2; however, its integrity
was potentially compromised. It was
recommended that the entirety of the
ditch be assessed in order to more
accurately address the integrity of the
segment located in the project area
(ECORP 2006a).
The Cram-Van Leuven Ditch is listed in
the HPDF as a resource that has been
determined ineligible for the NRHP by
consensus through the Section 106
process. In addition, this resource has
not been evaluated for the CRHR or for
local listing (NRS 6Y).
current study.
36-6849/CA-
SBR-6849H
G. Romani, G.
Head, N. Kaptain,
and T. Webb of
Greenwood and
Associates, 1990
Historic: An irrigation complex
consisting of flumes, drains,
standpipes, and earthen canals.
__ __ No
36-6850/CA-
SBR-6850H
G. Romani and N.
Kaptain of
Greenwood and
Associates, 1990
Historic: A connecting ditch for the
Cram-Van Leuven Ditch and the North
Fork Ditch constructed in 1882-1883.
This resource was recorded as a small
segment located to the west of the
project area in 1990. No other portions
of the resource have been addressed
by survey or updates. Nonetheless,
the SCCIC base maps depict this
resource in its assumed original
location, which shows the ditch
__ __
No. However,
this resource
may have
trended
southwest-
northeast
near the
northwestern
corner of the
project area.
This resource
was not
Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
Highland, San Bernardino County, CA December 2017
GSPI-05-646.ARS1 39 L&L
Resource
Number
Recorder
Name and
Date Resource Description
Within
~One
to 0.50
Mile
Radius
Within
~0.50
to 0.25
Mile
Radius
Within
~0.25
Mile
Radius
Within
Project
Area?
extending near the northwestern corner
of the project area.
observed in
the project
area during
the survey or
during a
historic aerial
review (NETR
2017).
36-6851/CA-
SBR-6851H
G. Romani, G.
Head, N. Kaptain,
and T. Webb of
Greenwood and
Associates, 1990
Historic: This site consists of six (6)
stone and mortar foundations with
associated refuse deposits. The refuse
deposits are primarily comprised of
cans.
In 1990, the site was described as
situated in an area that was currently
being developed.
__ __
No. However,
this site is
mapped
immediately
to the north of
the northern
project area
boundary
(Greenspot
Road).
36-6852/CA-
SBR-6852H
G. Romani, G.
Head, N. Kaptain,
and T. Webb of
Greenwood and
Associates, 1990
Historic: Water control/conveyance
structures, including a cistern,
wellhead, and pipelines.
__ __
No. However,
this site is
mapped
immediately
to the north of
the northern
project area
boundary
(Greenspot
Road).
36-6853/CA-
SBR-6853H
Originally
recorded by G.
Romani, G. Head,
N. Kaptain, and
T. Webb of
Greenwood and
Associates, 1990
Updated by J.
Eighmey, I.
Strudwick, R.
Phillips, P.
McHenry, J.
Boughton, and R.
Collett of
Gallegos &
Associates, 1993
Historic: Refuse scatter consisting of
glass, cans, and domestic refuse. This
resource was described as likely
surficial in nature.
This site could not be relocated during
surveys completed in 1993 and 2006
(Gallegos & Associates 1993; ECORP
2006a).
— — —
Yes. This
resource is
recorded in
the north-
central portion
of the project
area.
However, it
could not be
relocated
during
previous
studies
(Gallegos &
Associates
1993; ECORP
2006a) or
during the
current study.
36-6854/CA-
SBR-6854H
G. Romani, G.
Head, N. Kaptain,
and T. Webb of
Greenwood and
Associates, 1990
Historic: This resource consists of a
concrete trough, domestic refuse, a
fence line, and a portion of the Cram-
Van Leuven Ditch (36-6848/CA-SBR-
6848H).
__ __ No
36-7051/CA-
SBR-7051H
Originally
recorded by J. J.
Schmidt, G.
Romani, J.
Schmidt, and B.
Texier of
Greenwood and
Associates, 1990
Updated by M.
Pritchard-Parker,
A. Delu, and H.
Historic: An extensive irrigation
complex within an active orange grove.
Structures include flumes, weirs,
canals, standpipes, a reservoir, ditches,
and retaining walls.
__ __ No
Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
Highland, San Bernardino County, CA December 2017
GSPI-05-646.ARS1 40 L&L
Resource
Number
Recorder
Name and
Date Resource Description
Within
~One
to 0.50
Mile
Radius
Within
~0.50
to 0.25
Mile
Radius
Within
~0.25
Mile
Radius
Within
Project
Area?
Peterson of LSA,
1994 and C.
Harper and P.
Shattuck of LSA
2003
36-7165/CA-
SBR-7165H
Originally
recorded by R.
Hatheway of
Hatheway and
Associates, 1987
Updated by J.
McKenna of
McKenna, et al.,
1992
Historic: The Plunge Creek Bridge.
This bridge was constructed in about
1933 and is an example of the Pratt
Pony Truss style that was patented in
1844.
__ __ No
36-7434/CA-
SBR-7434H
Originally
recorded by R.
Phillips and P.
McHenry of
Gallegos &
Associates, 1993
Updated by
ECORP, 2006
Historic: Refuse dump consisting of
glass, cans, ceramics, and domestic
refuse. This site was detected on the
northern edge of the Cram-Van Leuven
Ditch (36-6848/CA-SBR-6848H) and
was described as eroding into the ditch.
When originally recoded, it measured 4
meters (north-south) by 5 meters (east-
west) (13 feet by 16 feet).
In 1993, probing via trowel indicated
that the site extended to a depth of
approximately 10 centimeters.
Diagnostic artifacts were collected and
identified a date of 1932 or later for the
deposit. Based on these results, the
interpretive value of information
available from this site was identified as
low and it was recommended not
important under CEQA. As such, no
additional work was recommended for
this resource prior to any impacts
(Gallegos & Associates 1993).
The site was relocated in 2006. At this
time, various artifacts were detected,
but the site was described as
comparatively more eroded than when
originally recorded. Testing was
recommended to evaluate the site
under CEQA (ECORP 2006a).
— — —
Yes. This
resource is
located in the
central portion
of the project
area and
remnants of
the site were
relocated
during the
current study.
36-7995/CA-
SBR-7995H
D. McLean and
M. Pritchard-
Parker of LSA,
1994
Historic: The Cram School Irrigation
Channels. This resource consists of
the remains of three (3) irrigation
channels constructed of split granite
cobbles and mortar. They were likely
installed in the late 19th century or early
20th century.
__ __ No
36-7996/CA-
SBR-7996H
B. Sturm and D.
McLean of LSA,
1994
Historic: The Cram Schools. This site
consists of two (2) features that may be
associated with the Cram Schools.
Feature 1 may be associated with the
1882 school and consists of a brick and
mortar flagpole base and associated
concrete swale for water run-off.
Feature 2 may be associated the 1902
school and appears to be a possible
concrete footing.
__ __ No
Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
Highland, San Bernardino County, CA December 2017
GSPI-05-646.ARS1 41 L&L
Resource
Number
Recorder
Name and
Date Resource Description
Within
~One
to 0.50
Mile
Radius
Within
~0.50
to 0.25
Mile
Radius
Within
~0.25
Mile
Radius
Within
Project
Area?
36-10181/CA-
SBR-10181H
D. McDougall and
D. Bircheff of
Applied
Earthworks, Inc.,
1999
Historic: A small surface scatter of
domestic refuse dating between about
1917 and the 1950s (or later).
__ __ No
36-10182/CA-
SBR-10182H
D. McDougall and
D. Bircheff of
Applied
Earthworks, Inc.,
1999
Historic: A small surface scatter of
domestic refuse dating between pre-
1917 and the 1950s.
__ __ No
36-10183/CA-
SBR-10183H
D. McDougall and
D. Bircheff of
Applied
Earthworks, Inc.,
1999
Historic: This site consists of four (4)
loci comprised of surficial domestic
refuse scatters. The observed refuse
indicates that the site location has been
used as a refuse dump throughout the
20th century.
__ __
No. However,
this site is
located
immediately
to the
southwest of
the project
area.
36-11475/CA-
SBR-11475H
D. McLean of
LSA, 1998
Historic: A Craftsman style residence
constructed in 1915, a cobble and
mortar wall, an irrigation flume, and an
orange orchard in operation since
approximately 1895 or 1896.
__ __ No
36-11476/CA-
SBR-11476H
D. McLean of
LSA, 1998
Historic: Eight (8) mortar and cobble
walls, a concrete gutter, and a cobble
irrigation ditch.
__ __ No
36-12264/CA-
SBR-12205H
C. Cotterman and
W. Sharp of
ECORP, 2006
Historic: Refuse scatter dominated by
domestic food containers and
consisting of glass, cans, and
ceramics. One (1) small concentration
of artifacts was noted and the resource
was described as surficial in nature.
This site measured 50 feet (north-
south) by 75 feet (east-west) and
diagnostic artifacts suggested a date
range of 1880 and 1925.
This site was recommended for testing
to evaluate the site under CEQA
(ECORP 2006a).
— — —
Yes. This
resource is
located in the
central portion
of the project
area and
remnants of
the site were
relocated
during the
current study.
36-12265 C. Cotterman of
ECORP, 2006
Historic: The remains of an early 20th
century citrus/poultry ranching
complex. This complex pre-dates 1948
and includes four (4) houses,
associated garages, a well and pump
stand, two (2) cisterns, a reservoir, a
chicken coop, a swimming pool,
concrete and iron water pipes, a
concrete foundation, and boulders.
This resource was recommended for
additional research to evaluate the site
under CEQA (ECORP 2006a).
— — —
Yes. This
resource is
located in the
southwest
corner of the
project area
and remnants
of the site
were
relocated
during the
current study.
36-24384/CA-
SBR-15513H
D. Ballester and
R. Porter of CRM
Tech, 2012
Historic: An earthen canal measuring
approximately 1,867 feet in length.
This resource was recommended not
eligible for inclusion in the NRHP and
the CRHR.
__ __ No
36-31127
A. Belcourt and
S. Kitchel of ICF
International,
2016
Historic: Isolated find consisting of one
(1) crushed, single hinged tobacco tin. __ __ No
Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
Highland, San Bernardino County, CA December 2017
GSPI-05-646.ARS1 42 L&L
Resource
Number
Recorder
Name and
Date Resource Description
Within
~One
to 0.50
Mile
Radius
Within
~0.50
to 0.25
Mile
Radius
Within
~0.25
Mile
Radius
Within
Project
Area?
36-31128/CA-
SBR-31128H
A. Belcourt and
S. Kitchel of ICF
International,
2016
Historic: A water channel comprised of
two (2) parallel berms constructed of
soil and cobbles. This resource dates
to 1938 or earlier.
The resource was recommended not
eligible under Criteria 1 through 4
(NRHP) or Criteria A through D
(CRHR).
__ __ No
36-31129/CA-
SBR-31129H
A. Belcourt and
S. Kitchel of ICF
International,
2016
Historic: A water channel comprised of
two (2) parallel berms constructed of
soil and cobbles. This resource dates
to 1938 or earlier.
The resource was recommended not
eligible under Criteria 1 through 4
(NRHP) or Criteria A through D
(CRHR).
__ __ No
36-060,195
G. Romani of
Greenwood and
Associates, 1987
Historic: Isolated find consisting of a
fragment of amethyst bottle glass. __ __ No
The SCCIC records search also indicated that 16 area-specific technical reports are on file for
the project area and the one mile search radius. Two (2) of these reports address the project
area (SB-2828/Gallegos & Associates 1993; SB-5671/ECORP 2006a), indicating that the
project area has been previously surveyed for the presence or absence of observable cultural
resources. One (1) of these reports (SB-5671/ECORP 2006a) addressed the entire project area
and the other report (SB-2828/Gallegos & Associates 1993) addressed the east half of the
project area. Collectively, the 16 previous reports address approximately 30 percent of the land
located within the search radius. The survey coverage varies throughout the search radius with
the lands located within 0.25 mile exhibiting 35 percent coverage, between 0.25 and 0.50 mile
20 percent coverage, and 0.50 and one mile of the project area exhibiting about 30 percent
coverage. The details of these reports are summarized below in Table 2.
Table 2. Previous Cultural Resources Studies Within One Mile of the Project Area
Report # Date Rsrcs Report Author
SB-0667 1978 Yes Cultural Resources Assessment for Tentative Tract 10501, East
Highland Area
San Bernardino
County Museum
Association (SBCM)
SB-1124 1981 No Cultural Resources Assessment of the East Highlands Ranch,
San Bernardino County, California SBCM
SB-1125 1986 No
Cultural Resources Assessment of Tentative Tracts 13467,
13468, and 13469, East Highlands Ranch Phase 3, San
Bernardino County, California
Lerch & Associates
Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
Highland, San Bernardino County, CA December 2017
GSPI-05-646.ARS1 43 L&L
Report # Date Rsrcs Report Author
SB-1566 1986 Yes Santa Ana River Upstream Alternatives, Cultural Resources
Survey
ECOS Management
Criteria, Inc.
SB-1783 1988 Yes Seven Oaks Dam Project: Water Systems Area Location
Systems
SB-1824 1988 Yes Old Webster Quarry EIR: Historic Resources Hatheway &
McKenna
SB-1878 1989 No Cultural Resource Survey for a Proposed Storm Drain Channel,
Near East Highlands, San Bernardino County, California
Greenwood and
Associates
SB-2679 1992 No
Archaeological Investigations at the Abbey Way Well Site
Property for the East Valley Water District, San Bernardino
County, California
McKenna, et al.
SB-2828 1993 Yes Cultural Resource Survey Report for the Concordia Homes
Project, City of Highlands, California
Gallegos &
Associates
SB-2936 1993 No Picnic/Staging Area M. Mlazovsky
SB-3036 1995 Yes
Archaeological and Historical Investigations of the Cram School
Site and Tentative Tracts 13551 and 15554, East Highlands, San
Bernardino County, California
LSA
SB-3037 1995 Yes Cultural Resources Assessment for 278.4 Acres Within East
Highlands Ranch, San Bernardino County, California LSA
SB-4831 2005 No
Cultural Resource Assessment: Upper Santa Ana River Wash
Land Management and Habitat Conservation Plan, San
Bernardino County, California
D. Brunzell
SB-5671 2006 Yes Cultural Resources Survey Report for the Heather Glen Project
(TT17604), City of Highland, San Bernardino County, California ECORP
SB-6638 2010 No Cultural Resource Survey Report: Greenspot Road Site, San
Bernardino County, California
Dynamic
Environmental
Associates, Inc.
SB-7146 2011 No
Identification and Evaluation of Historic Properties: East Valley
Water District Plant 143 Project, City of Highland, San
Bernardino County, California
D. Encarnacion
4.2) Historic Records Review
Historic documents and maps available from the BLM GLO website were reviewed to provide
information about historic era land use and development within the project area (BLM 2017). In
addition, archival topographic maps and aerial photographs containing the project area were
reviewed. This review included topographic maps dating between 1895 and 1999 and aerial
photographs dating between 1938 and 2012 (NETR 2017).
Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
Highland, San Bernardino County, CA December 2017
GSPI-05-646.ARS1 44 L&L
A review of land patents for Section 2 of Township 1 South, Range 3 West indicated that the
southeast quarter (SE ¼) of the southwest quarter (SW ¼) and the SW ¼ of the SE ¼ were
transferred to Titus H. Woodruff on October 5, 1907. This transfer occurred under the authority
of the Original Homestead Entry of May 20, 1862 (12 Stat. 392). Additional land transfers are
listed for Section 2; however, none of these transfers include the project area. These transfers
address lands that were allotted to the Cram and Van Leuven families. Specifically, lands within
the northeast quarter (NE ¼) and the southeast quarter (SE ¼) were transferred to Henry, John,
and/or Lorenzo Cram between 1879 and 1882. Lands within the northwest quarter (NW ¼) and
the S ½ were transferred to Benjamin, Frederick, and/or Sydney Van Leuven between 1875 and
1891.
Topographic maps dating between 1895 and 1951 do not depict structures within or near the
project area. However, the Old North Fork Ditch is shown trending within the project area as
early as 1899. In 1955, the ditch is no longer depicted and a water feature trends east-west
across the northern edge of the project area. In addition, three (3) structures are located in the
southwestern portion of the project area at the mapped location of 36-12265. This development
pattern is consistent between 1955 and 1964. In 1969, a total of four (4) structures are depicted
in the mapped location of 36-12265 and a blue-line water feature consistent with the mapped
location of 36-6848/CA-SBR-6848H is shown. By 1980, five (5) structures are shown in the
location of 36-12265. This development pattern is consistent with the modern topographic map
dating to 1999 and is generally reflected in the available aerial photographs.
The earliest aerial photograph dates to 1938 and shows several structures and active fields or
groves in the southwestern portion of the project area. These structures correspond to the
mapped location of 36-12265. Between 1959 and 1980, the number of structures at the
mapped location of 36-12265 appears to increase, as does the size of the associated
ornamental vegetation. The development in this area remains relatively consistent between
about 1995 and 2005, but by 2009 the structures appear to have been removed. Also,
beginning in 1938 and extending to the most recent aerial photograph (2016; Figure 3), a water
feature is observable trending east-west across the central portion of the project area. This
water feature corresponds to the mapped location of previously recorded resource 36-6848/CA-
SBR-6848H.
4.3) Native American Coordination
An SLS was requested from the NAHC on June 28, 2017 and a response was received on June
29, 2017 (Appendix D). The NAHC SLS failed to indicate the presence of Native American
Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
Highland, San Bernardino County, CA December 2017
GSPI-05-646.ARS1 45 L&L
cultural resources in the immediate project area. However, the NAHC noted that the absence of
specific site information does not indicate the absence of cultural resources in any project area
and that other resources should be consulted to obtain information regarding known and
previously recorded sites.
A total of 19 scoping letters were sent to the contacts named by the NAHC on July 6, 2017. As
a result of the information scoping process, one (1) response has been received from the
SMBMI. The SMBMI stated that the project is located within Serrano ancestral territory and
they requested additional project-related information and the completion of area-specific
research. Specifically, they recommended the completion of a records search at the SCCIC
and an archaeological pedestrian survey. All correspondence has been incorporated into
Appendix E and a summary of the detail is provided below in Table 3.
Table 3. Summary of Native American Coordination
Contact
Name and
Title
Contact
Affiliation
Method of
Contact and Date Response
Action(s)
Required?
Jeff Grubbe,
Chairperson
Agua Caliente
Band of Cahuilla
Indians
Scoping letter sent
via U.S. Mail on July
6, 2017
No response received. N/A
Patricia Garcia-
Plotkin,
Director
Agua Caliente
Band of Cahuilla
Indians
Scoping letter sent
via Email on July 6,
2017 No response received. N/A
Amanda
Vance,
Chairperson
Augustine Band
of Cahuilla
Mission Indians
Scoping letter sent
via U.S. Mail on July
6, 2017 No response received. N/A
Doug Welmas,
Chairperson
Cabazon Band of
Mission Indians
Scoping letter sent
via U.S. Mail on July
6, 2017 No response received. N/A
Daniel
Salgado,
Chairperson
Cahuilla Band of
Indians
Scoping letter sent
via Email on July 6,
2017 No response received. N/A
John Perada,
Environmental
Director
Los Coyotes
Band of Mission
Indians
Scoping letter sent
via U.S. Mail on July
6, 2017 No response received. N/A
Shane
Chapparosa,
Chairperson
Los Coyotes
Band of Mission
Indians
Scoping letter sent
via Email on July 6,
2017 No response received. N/A
Robert Martin,
Chairperson
Morongo Band of
Mission Indians
Scoping letter sent
via U.S. Mail on July
6, 2017 No response received. N/A
Denisa Torres,
Cultural
Resources
Manager
Morongo Band of
Mission Indians
Scoping letter sent
via Email on July 6,
2017 No response received. N/A
Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
Highland, San Bernardino County, CA December 2017
GSPI-05-646.ARS1 46 L&L
Contact
Name and
Title
Contact
Affiliation
Method of
Contact and Date Response
Action(s)
Required?
Joseph
Hamilton,
Chairperson
Ramona Band of
Cahuilla Mission
Indians
Scoping letter sent
via Email on July 6,
2017 No response received. N/A
John Gomez,
Environmental
Coordinator
Ramona Band of
Cahuilla Mission
Indians
Scoping letter sent
via Email on July 6,
2017 No response received N/A
John
Valenzuela,
Chairperson
San Fernando
Band of Mission
Indians
Scoping letter sent
via Email on July 6,
2017 No response received. N/A
Lee Clauss,
Director of
Cultural
Resources
SMBMI
Scoping letter sent
via Email on July 6,
2017 No response received. N/A
Jessica Mauck,
Cultural
Resources
Analyst
SMBMI
Response received
via Email on August
3, 2017
In an email dated August 3, 2017, Ms. Mauck
indicated that the project area was located
within Serrano ancestral territory and in an
area of interest to the Tribe. This interest was
based on the proximity of the project area to
Plunge Creek as it extends from the San
Bernardino Mountains near the SMBMI
reservation. For these reasons, they
requested additional project-related
information and the completion of a Phase I
investigation. Specifically, the SMBMI
requested the following:
The name and contact information
of the Lead Agency Point of
Contact, once determined;
An NAHC SLS;
A records search at the SCCIC
using a one mile radius;
Additional research performed via
historical documents and maps;
A map showing the results of the
background research with the
search radius;
Photographs of the project area;
Site/design plans with information
about the horizontal and vertical
extent of the project; and
A Phase I archaeological
investigation with 100 percent
coverage.
Advise the Lead
Agency of the
Tribe’s requests
and
recommendations.
Steven
Estrada,
Chairperson
Santa Rosa Band
of Mission Indians
Scoping letter sent
via U.S. Mail on July
6, 2017 No response received. N/A
Goldie Walker,
Chairperson
Serrano Nation of
Mission Indians
Scoping letter sent
via U.S. Mail on July
6, 2017 No response received. N/A
Joseph
Ontiveros,
Cultural
Resource
Department
Soboba Band of
Luiseno Indians
Scoping letter sent
via Email on July 6,
2017 No response received. N/A
Rosemary
Morillo,
Chairperson
Soboba Band of
Luiseno Indians
Scoping letter sent
via Email on July 6,
2017 No response received. N/A
Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
Highland, San Bernardino County, CA December 2017
GSPI-05-646.ARS1 47 L&L
Contact
Name and
Title
Contact
Affiliation
Method of
Contact and Date Response
Action(s)
Required?
Carrie Garcia,
Cultural
Resources
Manager
Soboba Band of
Luiseno Indians
Scoping letter sent
via Email on July 6,
2017 No response received. N/A
Michael
Mirelez,
Cultural
Resource
Coordinator
Torres-Martinez
Desert Cahuilla
Indians
Scoping letter sent
via Email on July 6,
2017 No response received. N/A
4.4) Pedestrian Survey and Site Visits
L&L Archaeologist William R. Gillean, B.S. performed site visits on July 11, 2017 and October 3,
2017 to relocate and document previously recorded resources. Mr. Gillean completed the
pedestrian survey on July 18, 2017. During the survey, east-west trending transects were
completed at intervals of no more than 15 meters throughout the entire +60 acre project area.
Survey coverage is shown in relation to the project area boundary in Figure 10 and photographs
of the project area are included in Appendix C.
The project area is generally rectangular in shape. It is located immediately to the south of
Greenspot Road and approximately 340 feet to the west of the intersection of Greenspot Road
and Weaver Street. The northern boundary consists of Greenspot Road and it exhibits plastic
and wire fencing immediately to the south of the road (Appendix C: Photographs 1 and 2). The
western boundary is formed by a dirt road with chain-link and wire fencing (Appendix C:
Photographs 3 and 4). It is bounded to the south by Abbey Way (Appendix C: Photographs 5
and 6) and to the east by wire fencing (Appendix C: Photographs 7 and 8). A small area
located along the southern project area boundary is not included in Tract 17604 and this area is
currently occupied by an East Valley Water District facility.
Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
Highland, San Bernardino County, CA December 2017
GSPI-05-646.ARS1 48 L&L
Figure 10
Survey Coverage
in the Project Area
(Photo obtained from Google Earth, October 2016)
Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
City of Highland
San Bernardino County, California
L&L Environmental, Inc.
BIOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL
INVESTIGATIONS AND MONITORING
GSPI-05-646
December 2017
Project Area (60 acres)
Survey Area (60 acres)
Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
Highland, San Bernardino County, CA December 2017
GSPI-05-646.ARS1 49 L&L
Ground surface visibility was generally poor, at approximately 10 to 20 percent, due to presence
of vegetation (Appendix C: Photographs 1, 7, and 8). Areas covered by dirt roads and
comparatively sparse vegetation exhibited excellent visibility (90 to 100 percent). These areas
were generally located in the western portion of the project area (Appendix C: Photographs 4,
9, and 10).
During the pedestrian survey and site visits, no new prehistoric or historic resources were
detected and four (4) previously recorded historic resources were relocated (36-6848/CA-SBR-
6848H, 36-7434/CA-SBR-7434H, 36-12264/CA-SBR-12205H, and 36-12265). One (1)
previously recorded historic site could not be relocated (36-6853/CA-SBR-6853H). These
resources are described in detail in Section 4.5 below. In addition, numerous modern and
recent historic refuse concentrations were noted in the central and southern portions of the
project area (Appendix C: Photographs 9 and 10). One (1) representative example included
construction debris, such as metal paint cans, rectangular cans, and spools, a pull-tab drink
container, and glass from a soft drink bottle (Appendix C: Photograph 11), while another
example included fragments of cobble and mortar with a fence post exhibiting modern nails and
barbed wire (Appendix C: Photograph 12). The prevalence of refuse within and near the project
area reflects the intensive use of the area for refuse disposal activities over time.
4.5) Resources Located in the Project Area
Four (4) previously recorded historic resources were relocated during the pedestrian survey and
the site visits (36-6848/CA-SBR-6848H, 36-7434/CA-SBR-7434H, 36-12264/CA-SBR-12205H,
and 36-12265). One (1) previously recorded historic site could not be relocated (36-6853/CA-
SBR-6853H). These resources are described in detail below and are shown in relation to the
project area boundary in Figure 11.
4.5.1) 36-6848/CA-SBR-6848H (Cram-Van Leuven Ditch)
36-6848/CA-SBR-6848H is mapped as trending east-west across the central portion of the
project area (Figure 11). This resource was originally recorded in December of 1990 by
Greenwood and Associates as a segment located to the west of Church Street (Romani, et al.
1990a). An update was completed in May of 1992 that addresses a possible portion of the ditch
located to the east of the project area (McKenna 1992). The segment of the ditch found in the
project area was addressed by updates completed in 1993 and 2006 (Eighmey, et al. 1993a;
Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
Highland, San Bernardino County, CA December 2017
GSPI-05-646.ARS1 51 L&L
ECORP 2006b). 36-6848/CA-SBR-6848H consists of the mapped location of the Cram-Van
Leuven Ditch, which is an irrigation ditch constructed in 1858 by members of the Cram and the
Van Leuven families. This ditch was one (1) of the first irrigation systems emerging from the
Santa Ana Canyon and it connected the mouth of the canyon with the Cram and Van Leuven
lands located at the base of the East Highlands bench. When originally constructed, the ditch
measured several miles in total length.
In the project area, the ditch was first addressed by Gallegos & Associates in March of 1993
(Eighmey, et al. 1993a; Gallegos & Associates 1993). At this time, the ditch was described as
measuring approximately 30 feet in width (maximum) with a depth of about 10 feet (maximum).
It also contained a small terrace feature on either side of the ditch that was situated about four
(4) feet from the existing ground surface. Furthermore, it was unlined and it lacked dams,
diversions, or any other associated features. The ditch was relocated in March of 2006 by
ECORP (ECORP 2006a; ECORP 2006b). In 2006, the description provided in 1993 was
determined to be accurate, but the ditch was found to be irregular in width and depth. At the
eastern end of the segment, the ditch measured about 75 feet in width with a depth of 10 feet,
while the western end measured 30 feet or less in width with a depth of about five (5) feet. The
eastern end was also described as terminating at a north-south trending modem flood control
channel comprised of concrete.
L&L relocated this resource during the pedestrian survey and site visits conducted in 2017. The
dimensions and description provided by ECORP in 2006 were found to be generally accurate;
however, the terrace feature first noted by Gallegos & Associates in 1993 was not observable.
Rather, the water feature appeared to exhibit a “U” or “V” shape. The absence of the terrace
feature may be the result of erosion, as the water feature exhibits friable soils. Currently, the
water feature is overgrown with vegetation and is filled with cobbles and boulders. No water is
observable in the feature and it does not convey flows either to or from the project area. The
western end terminates near two (2) dirt roads while the eastern end terminates at about the
project area boundary and is interrupted by a modern north-south trending flood control channel
(Appendix C: Photographs 13 and 14).
4.5.2) 36-6853/CA-SBR-6853H (Historic Refuse Scatter)
36-6853/CA-SBR-6853H is mapped near the northern project area boundary (Figure 11). This
site was originally recorded in December of 1990 by Greenwood and Associates (Romani, et al.
1990b). The site was described as a historic age domestic refuse scatter dominated by cans,
Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
Highland, San Bernardino County, CA December 2017
GSPI-05-646.ARS1 52 L&L
but also containing saw-cut mammal bone; ceramic fragments; and glass fragments, including
solarized glass. It also included intermingled recent refuse, but the historic age artifacts dated
the site from about World War I (1914-1918) to the 1930s or 1940s. The scatter appeared to be
surficial in nature and it measured approximately 69 feet (length) by 59 feet (width).
This site could not be relocated during studies completed in 1993 and 2006 (Gallegos &
Associates 1993; ECORP 2006a). In addition, L&L could not relocate this site during the
pedestrian survey or the site visits in 2017. The original site record from 1990 and an update
prepared in 1993 provide conflicting information when the location map is considered against
the provided UTMs and the sketch map (Romani, et al. 1990b; Eighmey, et al. 1993b). L&L
attempted to relocate the site at each of the areas indicated; but, no evidence of the site could
be detected. The site is mapped immediately to the south of Greenspot Road and this resource
was likely destroyed by associated road widening activities that occurred in the 1990s (Gallegos
& Associates 1993) (Appendix C: Photograph 15).
4.5.3) 36-7434/CA-SBR-7434H (Historic Refuse Dump)
36-7434/CA-SBR-7434H is mapped on the northern edge of the Cram-Van Leuven Ditch (36-
6848/CA-SBR-6848H) in the central portion of the project area (Figure 11). This site was
originally recorded in March of 1993 by Gallegos & Associates (Phillips and McHenry 1993;
Gallegos & Associates 1993). The site was described as a historic age domestic refuse dump
mainly consisting of cans, glass fragments, and ceramic fragments. Several diagnostic artifacts
were collected and analyzed and these artifacts dated the site to 1932 or later. The refuse
dump was described as eroding into the ditch, exhibiting fair integrity, and it measured
approximately 13 feet (north-south) by 16 feet (east-west).
This site was relocated in 2006 and was found to generally reflect the description provided in
1993 (ECORP 2006a; ECORP 2006c). In 2006, the site was described as containing fragments
of glass, ceramics, rusted cans, and bailing wire. It was situated on the northern bank of the
Cram-Van Leuven Ditch and continued down into the ditch. At this time, the site was
determined to be more affected by erosion than when originally recorded in 1993.
L&L relocated this site during the pedestrian survey and site visits in 2017; but, the site was
detected at a different location than the area indicated by the UTMs included in the 1993 site
record. The 1993 record contains two (2) sets of UTMs that plot the site approximately 100 feet
to the south of the Cram-Van Leuven Ditch. These UTMs are inconsistent with the sketch map
and location map that show the site on the northern edge of the ditch (Phillips and McHenry
Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
Highland, San Bernardino County, CA December 2017
GSPI-05-646.ARS1 53 L&L
1993). L&L relocated the site to the north of the ditch and recorded updated UTMs. At this
time, the site exhibits the same dimensions as described in 1993 and 2006, but only four (4)
fragments of glass, a possible tractor motor, and a scatter of milled wood planks with modern
nails were detected at the site location. While many of the diagnostic artifacts were collected in
1993, numerous artifacts remained in 2006 and the majority of these artifacts could not be
relocated by L&L. 36-7434/CA-SBR-7434H is a sparse scatter that appears to be in poor
condition as the majority of the recorded artifacts are no longer present and the soils have been
severely impacted by erosion (Appendix C: Photograph 16).
4.5.4) 36-12264/CA-SBR-12205H (Historic Refuse Scatter)
36-12264/CA-SBR-12205H is mapped in the central portion of the project area (Figure 11).
This site was originally recorded in March of 2006 by ECORP (Cotterman and Sharp 2006;
ECORP 2006a). It was described as a sparse historic age refuse scatter with a small
concentration of artifacts located near the western end of the site. The recorded artifacts mainly
consisted of domestic refuse with limited agricultural refuse and included cans, glass fragments,
ceramic fragments, bailing wire, barbed wire, and metal floodgates associated with irrigation
standpipes. Several diagnostic artifacts were analyzed and they dated the site between about
1880 and 1925. The scatter was described as surficial in nature and it measured approximately
50 feet (north-south) by 75 feet (east-west).
L&L relocated this site during the pedestrian survey and site visits in 2017. Currently, the site
reflects the same dimensions and general composition as described in 2006 (Cotterman and
Sharp 2006; ECORP 2006a). Specifically, the artifact concentration noted at the western end of
the site and measuring about three (3) feet in diameter was detected. In addition, the base of a
sun-altered octagonal drinking glass, a sherd of terracotta, barbed wire, bailing wire, and
metallic pipe or tubing were detected. However, none of the remaining artifacts described in the
original site record were detected. 36-12264/CA-SBR-12205H appears to be a very sparse
surface scatter currently containing approximately 18 artifacts within an area measuring about
3,750 square feet. It appears to be in fair to poor condition as several of the originally recorded
artifacts are no longer present and the soils have been impacted by erosion (Appendix C:
Photograph 17).
4.5.5) 36-12265 (Historic Citrus/Poultry Ranching Complex)
36-12265 is mapped in the southwestern corner of the project area (Figure 11). This resource
was originally recorded in March of 2006 by ECORP and it was described as an early 20th
Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
Highland, San Bernardino County, CA December 2017
GSPI-05-646.ARS1 54 L&L
century citrus and poultry ranching complex (Cotterman 2006; ECORP 2006a). The site
occupies an area measuring approximately 400 feet (north-south) by 650 feet (east-west) and is
comprised of four (4) houses and numerous associated features as summarized below:
One (1) house located at 29152 Abbey Way;
One (1) house located at 29172 Abbey Way;
Two (2) houses located at 29242 Abbey Way;
Associated garages;
A well and pump stand;
Two (2) cisterns;
A stone irrigation reservoir;
A chicken coop;
A concrete swimming pool;
Segments of concrete and iron pipe;
Remnants of a concrete building foundation; and
Lines of boulders resulting from land clearance.
All of the features recorded in 2006 were present at the site when the property was acquired by
the owner in 1948 and based on the architectural styles of the homes, ECORP estimated that
the houses dated to the 1930s or earlier.
L&L relocated the site during the pedestrian survey and site visits in 2017; however, the four (4)
houses and the majority of the features have been completely removed. At this time, the site
retains a total of three (3) previously recorded features, including the round concrete cistern, t he
stone irrigation reservoir, and a concrete well pad that may correspond to a well recorded in
conjunction with a pump stand at 29152 Abbey Way. 36-12265 currently appears to be in very
poor condition as all of the recorded houses and the majority of the associated features have
been removed and the surrounding soils have been impacted by erosion and demolition
activities (Appendix C: Photograph 18).
4.6) Eligibility Recommendations and Project Impacts
4.6.1) 36-6848/CA-SBR-6848H (Cram-Van Leuven Ditch)
36-6848/CA-SBR-6848H was initially recorded as a segment located to the west of the project
area in 1990 and an update was completed in May of 1992 that addresses a possible portion of
the ditch located to the east of the project area (Romani, et al. 1990a; McKenna 1992). The
Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
Highland, San Bernardino County, CA December 2017
GSPI-05-646.ARS1 55 L&L
segment of the ditch found in the project area was addressed by updates completed in 1993
and 2006 (Eighmey, et al. 1993a; ECORP 2006b).
In 1993, the segment located in the project area was described as considerably damaged by
numerous flooding episodes. Nonetheless, it was recommended for avoidance during future
development, if feasible. If avoidance was not possible, then recordation was considered
sufficient to mitigate impacts and no further work was recommended (Gallegos & Associates
1993). This resource was relocated in the project area in 2006 by ECORP (ECORP 2006a;
ECORP 2006b). ECORP noted that the ditch was likely eligible for the CRHR under Criteria 1
and 2, but that it may no longer possess integrity. They recommended that the portions of the
ditch located outside of the project area be assessed in order to more accurately address the
integrity of the segment (ECORP 2006a).
As of 2010, the Cram-Van Leuven Ditch has been found ineligible for the NRHP; but, it has not
been formally evaluated for the CRHR or for any local registers. It is listed in the HPDF with a
status code of 6Y, indicating that it has been determined ineligible for the NRHP by consensus
through the Section 106 process. In addition, this resource has not been evaluated for the
CRHR or for local listing.
Currently, a segment of this ditch is mapped within the project area and L&L detected a water
feature at the resource location in 2017. However, the water feature located in the project area
could not be verified as a segment of the Cram-Van Leuven Ditch during its period of
significance (1858-1881) (see below [Theme and Period of Significance] and Section 2.5).
Theme and Period of Significance
The portion of 33-6848/CA-SBR-6848H located in the project area has been mapped as a
segment of the larger Cram-Van Leuven Ditch measuring approximately 1,900 feet in length.
The entirety of the ditch measured several miles in length when originally constructed in 1858.
The ditch connected the mouth of the Santa Ana Canyon with the Cram and Van Leuven family
lands located at the base of the East Highlands bench and it was one (1) of the first irrigation
systems emerging from the canyon (Gallegos & Associates 1993; ECORP 2006). The ditch
allowed for the water supply needed to support agriculture and domestic life in the burgeoning
Community of Cramville, which was later renamed East Highlands and incorporated as part of
the City of Highland (ECORP 2006a; Highland 2006).
Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
Highland, San Bernardino County, CA December 2017
GSPI-05-646.ARS1 56 L&L
This segment of the Cram-Van Leuven Ditch could not be verified as segment of the Cram-Van
Leuven Ditch constructed in 1858; rather, it may be a mapping error or a segment of a later
iteration of the Cram-Van Leuven/Old North Fork Ditch. If this segment is part of a later iteration
of the ditch, then it shares the potential significance and historic context of the entire ditch
alignment as a contributor to the development of agricultural and domestic life in Highland. The
theme of significance is Community Water System Development (JRP and Caltrans 2000). The
period of significance is 1858 to 1881, which represents the time between the initial date of
construction for the ditch and the date when the central portion of the ditch becomes
unnecessary and is effectively replaced by the high-line North Fork Canal (Beattie 1951; Scott
1977; Atchley 2017; Quales n.d.)
Integrity
The site was evaluated against the seven (7) aspects of integrity as outlined in National
Register Bulletin 15, including location, setting, design, workmanship, materials, feeling, and
association (NPS 1991).
Location: The ditch segment located in the project area was first identified as a portion of the
Cram-Van Leuven Ditch by Gallegos & Associates in 1993 (Gallegos & Associates 1993). This
identification was based upon the mapping of the Old North Fork Ditch in the project area on the
USGS 1899 Redlands, CA map (Figure 7). However, determining the actual location of the
original Cram-Van Leuven Ditch as constructed in 1858; its permutations when upgraded; its
later iterations when combined with the North Fork Ditch in 1865; and where the ditch was
located after it fell out of necessary use post-1881 is a complicated task. This is due to a lack of
maps dating to the period of initial construction, an extensive flooding event in 1862 that
changed the flow of the Santa Ana River and affected the ditch, and an additional heavy
flooding event in 1867. In addition, there is a time delay between the last necessary date of the
central portion of the ditch (after 1881) and the earliest available maps showing the ditch (late
1880s and early 1890s).
In an effort to identify the location of the Cram-Van Leuven Ditch in Section 2 of Township 1
South, Range 3 West, L&L contacted several local libraries and local historians to obtain maps
and information. While there is no map associated with the ditch on-file at the San Bernardino
County Historical Archives (SB County 2017), L&L did obtain numerous maps of irrigation
features in the Highland area from other resources (see Section 2.5). Based on the review of
the earliest available maps focused on irrigation features (1888 [Figure 5] and 1891 [Figure 6]),
the Old North Fork Ditch/Cram-Van Leuven Ditch was located in the N ½ of the S ½ of Section 2
Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
Highland, San Bernardino County, CA December 2017
GSPI-05-646.ARS1 57 L&L
of Township 1 South, Range 3 West in the vicinity of the project area. This places the ditch to
the north of modern Greenspot Road and outside the current project area. Later USGS maps
dating to 1899 and into the early 20th century begin to depict the Old North Fork Ditch in the
project area (Figure 7). This may be a mapping error where a drainage feature was identified
as part of the ditch or a more southerly route for this portion of the ditch that came into use
sometime after 1891. Thus, the segment of the ditch mapped in the project area could not be
verified as a segment of the Cram-Van Leuven Ditch as it existed from its date of construction
until the date it fell out of necessary use (1858-1881). As such, the resource segment does not
appear to follow the alignment of its period of significance and does not retain integrity of
location.
Setting: The surrounding physical environment of this resource segment has been modified
over time. When the Cram-Van Leuven Ditch was constructed in 1858, it conveyed water from
the Santa Ana River to the Cram and Van Leuven family lands. In addition, the ditch brought
water to one (1) of the earlier settlements in the area that became known as Cramville and later
East Highlands (ECORP 2006a; Highland 2006). The lands surrounding the burgeoning
community were generally undeveloped at this time, including the lands surrounding the ditch
segment in the project area. While the project area itself has remained undeveloped, the lands
located immediately to the north of Greenspot Road are currently developed with high-density
residential housing that extends to the west, north, and east and into the surrounding foothills.
Thus, the setting of this segment has been significantly altered.
Design, Materials, and Workmanship: This resource segment does not appear to follow the
alignment of its period of significance and may reflect a later and more southerly route for the
ditch that came into use sometime after 1891. As such, it does not retain integrity of its original
design, materials, or workmanship.
Feeling and Association: Due to a lack of integrity in terms of location, setting, design,
materials, and workmanship, this resource segment also lacks feeling and association. As
discussed above, this segment possibly reflects a different route for the ditch that may have
come into use after the end of its period of significance (post-1881). As such, it fails to convey
its historic character and its association to events affiliated with its original construction in 1858.
Although the segment of 36-6848/CA-SBR-6848H may reflect a route for the Cram-Van Leuven
Ditch/Old North Fork Ditch, this alignment was not present during the period of significance. As
such, the evaluated segment does not reflect the period of time for which its significance is
Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
Highland, San Bernardino County, CA December 2017
GSPI-05-646.ARS1 58 L&L
gained (1858-1881) and it fails to retain its integrity under any of the aspects outlined in National
Register Bulletin 15 (NPS 1991).
CRHR Eligibility Evaluation
This resource was evaluated at the local level for its association with Community Water System
Development in the Cramville/East Highland area of modern Highland between the years of
1858 and 1881. Following is a discussion of the application of the CRHR criteria:
Criterion 1: This resource segment was assessed under CRHR Criterion 1 for its potential
significance as part of historic events that have made a significant contribution to the broad
patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage (Event). Water conveyance systems are
often found eligible under this type of criterion, as they are indispensable to the communities
they serve and they provide the infrastructure needed for agricultural and community
development (JRP and Caltrans 2000). Water supply is particularly important in the state of
California and the Highland area as the arid lands require a reliable water source to irrigate
crops. The Cram Van-Leuven Ditch was constructed in 1858 as the first major water diversion
project in the area. It was implemented to bring water from the Santa Ana Canyon to the East
Highlands bench and it provided a reliable source of water for the burgeoning community. The
ditch represents the advent of the agricultural history and success of the East Highlands area,
which has a rich tradition of agricultural pursuits extending from the late 1850s into the modern
era. Therefore, this resource segment appears to qualify for the CRHR under Criterion 1.
Criterion 2: This resource segment was considered under Criterion 2 for its association with
the lives of persons important in our past (Person). While the ditch is associated with members
of the Cram and Van Leuven families and both families played a significant role in the
settlement of East Highland, the ditch must be associated with their productive life and must be
the property that is most closely associated with each person. Water conveyance systems are
rarely found eligible under this type of criterion, as there are typically other more suitable criteria
(see Criterion 1 above) and they are typically not the most closely associated properties (JRP
and Caltrans 2000). For example, a property that may be better associated with the Cram
family could be the site of the original Cram homestead located in nearby Section 3. Though
the home is no longer extant, the homestead location has been recorded as 36-4220/CA-SBR-
4220H and is listed as CPHI-31 (Teal 1980). Therefore, while this resource segment is
associated with the lives of persons important to the past of Highland, it is arguably better
classified eligible as a contributor to the broad patterns of local history (Criterion 1/Event) and
does not appear to qualify for the CRHR under Criterion 2.
Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
Highland, San Bernardino County, CA December 2017
GSPI-05-646.ARS1 59 L&L
Criterion 3: This resource segment was evaluated for Criterion 3 for embodying the distinctive
characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction; as representing the work of
an important creative individual; or possessing high artistic values (Construction/Architecture).
Under this type of criterion, water conveyance systems have been found eligible for their
engineering or design values. In this case, the resource consists of a segment of a hand-hewn
earthen ditch and it does not represent a design innovation or an example of an evolutionary
trend in engineering. As such, this resource segment does not appear to qualify for the CRHR
under Criterion 3.
Criterion 4: This segment was also considered for Criterion 4 for the potential to yield or
likelihood to yield information important to prehistory or history (Information Potential). This
resource does not have the potential to provide information about history that is not available
through historic research. Therefore, this resource segment does not appear to qualify for the
CRHR under Criterion 4.
To be considered eligible for inclusion in the CRHR, a resource must possess integrity and
demonstrate eligibility under at least one of the CRHR criteria. This resource segment
represents the agricultural history and success of the East Highlands area and is directly
associated with the success of the early East Highlands community. As such, it appears to
meet the significance criteria of the CRHR under Criterion 1 (Event). However, the water
feature segment in the project area does not appear to reflect the location of the ditch during its
period of significance (1858-1881). Instead, it may represent a mapping error or a later and
more southerly extension of the ditch (see Section 2.5). In addition, the existing water feature is
in very poor condition, as it has been adversely affected by erosion over time and is currently
overgrown with vegetation and is filled with cobbles and boulders. As such, this ditch segment
possesses low integrity in general and low integrity for its period of significance (1858-1881).
Thus, the segment of 36-6848/CA-SBR-6848H (Cram-Van Leuven Ditch) mapped within the
project area is recommended not eligible for inclusion in the CRHR.
City of Highland Cultural Resource Eligibility Evaluation
This resource was also evaluated for eligibility as a cultural resource pursuant to Section
16.32.060 of the City of Highland Municipal Code. For the same reasons outlined above in the
CRHR eligibility assessment under Criterion 1 (Event), this resource segment appears eligible
as a City of Highland cultural resource under Criterion A. However, in order to be considered
eligible as a cultural resource by the City, a resource must generally meet the criteria for listing
on the NRHP and/or qualify under additional criteria identified by the City (A-J).
Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
Highland, San Bernardino County, CA December 2017
GSPI-05-646.ARS1 60 L&L
In order to be listed on the NRHP, a resource must meet at least one (1) of the significance
criteria (A-D) and the resource must also demonstrate a sufficient degree of integrity so that it is
capable of conveying such significance. In the case of the water feature located in the project
area, this feature does not appear to reflect the location of the Cram-Van Leuven Ditch during
its period of significance (1858-1881). Rather, it may represent a mapping error or a later and
more southerly extension of the ditch as outlined above in the CRHR eligibility assessment (see
also Section 2.5). Thus, the segment of 36-6848/CA-SBR-6848H (Cram-Van Leuven Ditch)
mapped within the project area is recommended not eligible as a City of Highland cultural
resource.
Project Impacts
The project proposes to construct a portion of Tract 17604 at the recorded location of a segment
of 36-6848/CA-SBR-6848H (Figure 12). Therefore, this resource segment could be directly
impacted by the proposed project. The research efforts completed during this study and
recordation onto a DPR 523 Update Form exhausts this resource segment’s research value and
no further work is recommended prior to project implementation.
4.6.2) 36-6853/CA-SBR-6853H (Historic Refuse Scatter)
36-6853/CA-SBR-6853H could not be relocated in 1993, 2006, or during the current study
(Gallegos & Associates 1993; ECORP 2006a). The site is mapped immediately to the south of
Greenspot Road and this resource was likely destroyed by associated road widening activities
(Gallegos & Associates 1993).
The project proposes to construct a portion of Tract 17604 at the recorded location of 36-
6853/CA-SBR-6853H (Figure 12). As this resource cannot be relocated and is considered
destroyed, no known artifacts associated with 36-6853/CA-SBR-6853H will be impacted by the
project.
Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
Highland, San Bernardino County, CA December 2017
GSPI-05-646.ARS1 62 L&L
4.6.3) 36-7434/CA-SBR-7434H (Historic Refuse Dump)
36-7434/CA-SBR-7434H was initially recorded during the completion of a pedestrian survey
performed on 114 acres (Phillips and McHenry 1993; Gallegos & Associates 1993). This survey
was completed to support the construction of a storm drain for Tract 13936, which was also
identified as the Concordia Homes Project. At this time, probing via trowel indicated that the
site extended to a depth of approximately 10 centimeters. Diagnostic artifacts were collected
and identified a date of 1932 or later for the deposit. Based on these results, the interpretive
value of the information available from this site was identified as low and it was recommended
not important under CEQA. As such, no additional work was recommended for this resource
prior to any impacts (Gallegos & Associates 1993). The site was relocated by ECORP in 2006.
At this time, various artifacts were detected, but the site was described as comparatively more
eroded than when originally recorded. ECORP recommended that the site be tested and
evaluated for CRHR eligibility if it could not be avoided and preserved (ECORP 2006a).
To be considered eligible for inclusion in the CRHR, a resource must possess integrity and
demonstrate eligibility under at least one (1) of the CRHR criteria. In 1993 and 2006, the site
was described as impacted by erosion (Phillips and McHenry 1993; ECORP 2006c). Currently,
the site consists of a very sparse surface scatter containing four (4) fragments of glass, a
possible tractor motor, and a scatter of milled wood planks with modern nails. It appears to be
in very poor condition as many of the originally recorded artifacts are no longer present and the
soils have been severely impacted by erosion. Thus, this site does not appear to retain
sufficient integrity to be considered eligible for inclusion in the CRHR and no evidence was
detected to indicate that this resource has the potential to yield additional information important
to history (Criterion 4). Therefore, L&L recommends this site as not eligible for inclusion in the
CRHR. Furthermore, L&L recommends that this site does not qualify as a historical resource
pursuant to CEQA or as a cultural resource under Section 16.32.060 of the City of Highland
Municipal Code.
The project proposes to construct a portion of Tract 17604 at the location of 36-7434/CA-SBR-
7434H (Figure 12). Therefore, this resource could be directly impacted by the proposed project.
Recordation onto a DPR 523 Update Form exhausts the site’s research value and no further
work is recommended for this resource prior to project implementation.
Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
Highland, San Bernardino County, CA December 2017
GSPI-05-646.ARS1 63 L&L
4.6.4) 36-12264/CA-SBR-12205H (Historic Refuse Scatter)
36-12264/CA-SBR-12205H was initially recorded during the completion of a pedestrian survey
performed on 58.71 acres (Cotterman and Sharp 2006; ECORP 2006a). This survey was
completed to support the HeatherGlen/Tract 17604 Project. At this time, the site was described
as in fair condition and impacted by erosion. ECORP recommended that the site be tested and
evaluated for CRHR eligibility if it could not be avoided and preserved.
To be considered eligible for inclusion in the CRHR, a resource must possess integrity and
demonstrate eligibility under at least one (1) of the CRHR criteria. In 2006, the site was
described as a sparse refuse scatter impacted by erosion (Cotterman and Sharp 2006; ECORP
2006a). Currently, the site consists of a very sparse surface scatter containing approximately
18 artifacts within an area measuring about 3,750 square feet. It appears to be in fair to poor
condition as several of the originally recorded artifacts are no longer present and the soils have
been impacted by erosion. Thus, this site does not appear to retain sufficient integrity to be
considered eligible for inclusion in the CRHR and no evidence was detected to indicate that this
resource has the potential to yield additional information important to history (Criterion 4).
Therefore, L&L recommends this site as not eligible for inclusion in the CRHR. Furthermore,
L&L recommends that this site does not qualify as a historical resource pursuant to CEQA or as
a cultural resource under Section 16.32.060 of the City of Highland Municipal Code.
The project proposes to construct a portion of Tract 17604 at the location of 36-12264/CA-SBR-
12205H (Figure 12). Therefore, this resource could be directly impacted by the proposed
project. Recordation onto a DPR 523 Update Form exhausts the site’s research value and no
further work is recommended for this resource prior to project implementation.
4.6.5) 36-12265 (Historic Citrus/Poultry Ranching Complex)
36-12265 was initially recorded during the completion of a pedestrian survey performed on
58.71 acres (Cotterman 2006; ECORP 2006a). This survey was completed to support the
HeatherGlen/Tract 17604 Project. At this time, ECORP recommended that the site be further
researched and evaluated for CRHR eligibility if it could not be avoided and preserved.
To be considered eligible for inclusion in the CRHR, a resource must possess integrity and
demonstrate eligibility under at least one (1) of the CRHR criteria. In 2006, the site exhibited a
total of four (4) houses and a variety of associated outbuildings and features (Cotterman 2006;
ECORP 2006a). Currently, all of the recorded houses and the majority of the features have
Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
Highland, San Bernardino County, CA December 2017
GSPI-05-646.ARS1 64 L&L
been completely removed. The removal of these buildings and features have rendered the site,
including the surrounding soils, in very poor condition. Thus, this site does not appear to retain
sufficient integrity to be considered eligible for inclusion in the CRHR and no evidence was
detected to indicate that this resource has the potential to yield additional information important
to history (Criterion 4). Therefore, L&L recommends this site as not eligible for inclusion in th e
CRHR. Furthermore, L&L recommends that this site does not qualify as a historical resource
pursuant to CEQA or as a cultural resource under Section 16.32.060 of the City of Highland
Municipal Code.
The project proposes to construct a portion of Tract 17604 at the location of 36-12265 (Figure
12). Therefore, this resource could be directly impacted by the proposed project. Recordation
onto a DPR 523 Update Form exhausts the site’s research value and no further work is
recommended for this resource prior to project implementation.
Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
Highland, San Bernardino County, CA December 2017
GSPI-05-646.ARS1 65 L&L
5.0) CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
In accordance with CEQA, L&L has assessed the impacts of the proposed development on the
project area. A records search at the SCCIC indicated that five (5) resources have been
mapped within or partially within the project area: 36-6848/CA-SBR-6848H, 36-6853/CA-SBR-
6853H, 36-7434/CA-SBR-7434H, 36-12264/CA-SBR-12205H, and 36-12265. In addition, the
records search showed that 100 percent of the project area has been previously inventoried via
two (2) reports (SB-2828/Gallegos & Associates 1993; SB-5671/ECORP 2006a). Including the
two (2) reports that address the project area, a total of 16 studies have been completed within
one mile. These studies have addressed approximately 30 percent of the land within the search
radius and have recorded 39 cultural resources.
A historic records review included the examination of documents and maps available from the
BLM GLO (BLM 2017), archival topographic maps (NETR 2017), and aerial photographs (NETR
2017). Additional research was completed for the Cram-Van Leuven Ditch (36-6848/CA-SBR-
6848H) at the A.K. Smiley Library, the Feldhym Library, the San Bernardino County Historical
Archives, the HAHS website, and via inquires to local historians. The results of the review
indicated that the Old North Fork Ditch/Cram-Van Leuven Ditch has been variably mapped near
or within the project area since the late 1880s. In addition, a water feature is observable on
aerial photographs at the mapped location of the Cram-Van Leuven Ditch (36-6848/CA-SBR-
6848H) since 1938. Finally, various structures have been located within the southwestern
portion of the project area over time and in association with a historic age citrus and poultry
ranching complex (36-12265). This complex includes several structures and active fields or
groves that were present by at least 1938 and the structures were removed by 2009 (NETR
2017).
An SLS was completed by the NAHC and the search failed to indicate the presence of Native
American cultural resources in the immediate project area (Appendix D). Information scoping
letters were sent to the 19 contacts listed by the NAHC on July 6, 2017. As of the date of this
report, one (1) response has been received from the SMBMI. The SMBMI stated that the
project is located within Serrano ancestral territory and they requested additional project-related
information and the completion of background research. Specifically, they recommended a
records search at the SCCIC and an archaeological pedestrian survey. Finally, they requested
that the results be provided for their review and consideration. All L&L correspondence
completed to date has been incorporated into Appendix E.
Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
Highland, San Bernardino County, CA December 2017
GSPI-05-646.ARS1 66 L&L
Site visits were completed on July 11, 2017 and October 3, 2017 to relocate and document
previously recorded resources and the Phase I pedestrian survey was conducted on July 18,
2017. During the pedestrian survey and site visits, no new prehistoric or historic resources were
detected and four (4) previously recorded historic resources were relocated (36-6848/CA-SBR-
6848H, 36-7434/CA-SBR-7434H, 36-12264/CA-SBR-12205H, and 36-12265). One (1)
previously recorded historic site could not be relocated (36-6853/CA-SBR-6853H). DPR 523
Update Forms were prepared for all resources associated with the project area and they were
submitted to the SCCIC for their files (Appendix F).
36-6848/CA-SBR-6848H (Cram-Van Leuven Ditch) is an irrigation ditch constructed in 1858 by
members of the Cram and the Van Leuven families. Based on its association with the early
development of East Highland, 36-6848/CA-SBR-6848H appears to meet the significance
criteria of the CRHR under Criterion 1 (Event) and the City of Highland Municipal Code cultural
resource criteria under Criterion A (Section 16.32.060). However, the water feature segment in
the project area does not appear to reflect the location of the ditch during its period of
significance (1858-1881). Instead, it may represent a mapping error or a later and more
southerly extension of the ditch that came into use sometime after 1891 (see Section 2.5). In
addition, the existing water feature is in very poor condition, as it has been adversely affected by
erosion over time and is currently overgrown with vegetation and is filled with cobbles and
boulders. As such, this ditch segment possesses low integrity in general and low integrity for
its period of significance (1858-1881). Thus, the segment of 36-6848/CA-SBR-6848H (Cram-
Van Leuven Ditch) mapped within the project area is recommended not eligible for inclusion in
the CRHR, not eligible as a City of Highland cultural resource, and not significant under CEQA.
The research efforts completed during this study and recordation onto a DPR 523 Update Form
exhausts this resource segment’s research value and no further work is recommended prior to
project implementation.
36-6853/CA-SBR-6853H (Historic Refuse Scatter) could not be relocated within the project area
and is presumed to be destroyed. As this resource is considered destroyed, no known artifacts
or features will be impacted by the project and no further work is recommended prior to project
implementation.
36-7434/CA-SBR-7434H (Historic Refuse Dump), 36-12264/CA-SBR-12205H (Historic Refuse
Scatter), and 36-12265 (Historic Citrus/Poultry Ranching Complex) currently lack the artifact
content or features once recorded at each site and all three (3) sites have been subject to soil
disturbances associated with erosion. 36-12265 has additionally been adversely impacted by
Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
Highland, San Bernardino County, CA December 2017
GSPI-05-646.ARS1 67 L&L
demolition activities. None of these resources appear to retain sufficient integrity to be
considered eligible for inclusion in the CRHR and no evidence was detected to indicate that any
of these resources have the potential to yield additional information important to history
(Criterion 4). Therefore, L&L recommends 36-7434/CA-SBR-7434H, 36-12264/CA-SBR-
12205H, and 36-12265 not eligible for inclusion in the CRHR and not significant pursuant to
CEQA. In addition, L&L recommends these sites not eligible as cultural resources under
Section 16.32.060 of the City of Highland Municipal Code. Recordation onto DPR 523 Update
Forms exhausts each site’s research value and no further work is recommended for any of
these resources prior to project implementation.
Based on the results of a records search completed at the SCCIC; the pedestrian survey and
site visits; and the research, recording, and evaluation efforts, no known historical or
archaeological resources pursuant to CEQA are located in the project area. However,
archaeological monitoring is recommended during project implementation and this monitoring
program is outlined below in Table 4.
It should also be noted that the SMBMI have indicated that the project area lies within Serrano
ancestral territory. In addition, they have requested additional project-related information,
including the results of archaeological research and survey efforts. Upon their review of the
requested information, the SMBMI may provide additional comments or recommendations. The
results of this process may further assist in outlining the sensitivity of the project area for Native
American resources and the need or lack thereof for Native American monitoring during project
implementation.
5.1) Recommendations
Based on the results of the current study, the project area appears to have a high sensitivity for
historic age resources and moderate to low sensitivity for prehistoric resources. Therefore, a
mitigation-monitoring program is recommended during project implementation and this program
is outlined below in Table 4.
Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
Highland, San Bernardino County, CA December 2017
GSPI-05-646.ARS1 68 L&L
Table 4. Recommended Cultural Resources Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Number Mitigation Text
CR-1
The project area has a high sensitivity for historic age resources and a moderate to low sensitivity for
prehistoric resources. This is based on the intensive historic era use of the project area and
surrounding lands. To address this sensitivity, L&L recommends that an archaeological mitigation-
monitoring program be implemented within the project boundaries during all ground-disturbing
activities.
Full-time monitoring is recommended throughout the entire project area, with attention focused on
any intact soils that may be found beneath soils that have been disturbed by soil erosion and
previous land uses in the project area. Full-time monitoring should continue until the project
archaeologist determines that the overall sensitivity of the project area has been reduced from high
to low as a result of mitigation-monitoring. Should the monitor(s) determine that there are no cultural
resources within the impacted areas or should the sensitivity be reduced to low during monitoring, all
monitoring should cease.
CR-2
Should any cultural resources be discovered, the monitor(s) are authorized to temporarily halt all
grading in the immediate vicinity of the discovery while the resource is recorded onto appropriate
DPR 523 Forms and evaluated for significance. If the resource is determined to be significant, the
monitor shall make recommendations to the Lead Agency on the measures that shall be
implemented to protect the discovered resources, including but not limited to, avoidance, excavation,
and further evaluation of the finds in accordance with CEQA.
No further grading shall occur in the area of the discovery until the Lead Agency approves the
measures to protect these resources. Any archaeological artifacts recovered as a result of
mitigation, excluding items covered by the provisions of applicable Treatment Plans or Agreements,
shall be donated to a qualified scientific institution approved by the Lead Agency where they would
be afforded long-term preservation to allow future scientific study.
CR-3
The results of the mitigation-monitoring program shall be incorporated into a final report and
submitted to the Lead Agency for review and approval. Upon approval by the Lead Agency, the final
report, including any associated DPR 523 Forms, shall be submitted to the SCCIC.
5.2) Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains
There is always the possibility that ground-disturbing activities during construction may uncover
previously unknown and buried human remains. If human remains are discovered during any
phase of construction, including disarticulated or cremated remains, all ground-disturbing
activities should cease within 100 feet of the remains and the County Coroner and the Lead
Agency (City of Highland) should be immediately notified.
California State Health and Safety Code 7050.5 dictates that no further disturbance shall occur
until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant
to CEQA regulations and PRC Section 5097.98. If the County Coroner determines that the
remains are Native American, the NAHC shall be notified within 24 hours and the guidelines of
the NAHC shall be adhered to in the treatment and disposition of the remains. The Lead
Agency shall also retain a professional archaeologist with Native American burial experience to
conduct a field investigation of the find and consult with the Most Likely Descendant, if any,
identified by the NAHC. As necessary and appropriate, the archaeologist may provide
professional assistance to the Most Likely Descendant, including the excavation and removal of
Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
Highland, San Bernardino County, CA December 2017
GSPI-05-646.ARS1 69 L&L
the human remains. The Lead Agency shall be responsible for approval of recommended
mitigation as it deems appropriate, taking account of the provisions of State law, as set forth in
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e) and PRC Section 5097.98. The project contractor shall
implement approved mitigation measure(s), to be verified by the Lead Agency, prior to resuming
ground-disturbing activities within 100 feet of where the remains were discovered.
5.3) Unanticipated Discovery of Cultural Resources
It is always possible that ground-disturbing activities may uncover presently obscured or buried
and previously unknown cultural resources. In the event that buried cultural resources are
discovered during construction, such resources could be damaged or destroyed, resulting in
impacts to potentially significant cultural resources. If subsurface cultural resources are
encountered during construction, if evidence of an archaeological site is observed, or if other
suspected historic resources are encountered, it is recommended that all ground-disturbing
activity cease within 100 feet of the resource. A professional archaeologist shall be consulted to
assess the find and to determine whether the resource requires further study. The qualified
archeological personnel shall assist the Lead Agency by generating measures to protect the
discovered resources. Potentially significant cultural resources could consist of, but are not
limited to: stone, bone, fossils, wood, or shell artifacts or features, including structural remains,
historic dumpsites, hearths, and middens. Midden features are characterized by darkened soil
and could conceal material remains, including worked stone, fired clay vessels, faunal bone,
hearths, storage pits, or burials and special attention should always be paid to uncharacteristic
soil color changes. Any previously undiscovered resources found during construction should be
recorded on appropriate DPR forms and evaluated for significance under all applicable
regulatory criteria.
If the resources are determined to be unique historic resources as defined under §15064.5 of
the CEQA Guidelines, mitigation measures shall be identified by the monitor and recommended
to the Lead Agency. Appropriate mitigation measures for significant resources could include
avoidance or capping, incorporation of the site in green space, parks, or open space, or data
recovery excavations of the finds.
No further grading shall occur in the area of the discovery until the Lead Agency approves the
measures to protect these resources. Any archaeological artifacts recovered as a result of
mitigation shall be donated to a qualified scientific institution approved by the Lead Agency
where they would be afforded long-term preservation to allow future scientific study.
Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
Highland, San Bernardino County, CA December 2017
GSPI-05-646.ARS1 70 L&L
6.0) REFERENCES CITED
Atchley, T. 2017. Personal Communications Between Redlands Historical Society Member
Tom Atchley, L&L Archaeologist William R. Gillean, and L&L Archaeologist Jennifer M.
Sanka. November 10 through 19, 2017.
Bean, L. J. 1972. Mukat’s People: The Cahuilla Indians of Southern California. Los Angeles,
CA: University of California Press.
Bean, L. J. 1978. Cahuilla. In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8: California, edited
by R.F. Heizer, pp. 575-587. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.
Bean, L. J., and K. S. Saubel. 1979. Temalpakh: Cahuilla Indian Knowledge and Usage of
Plants. Banning, CA: Maliki Museum Press.
Bean, L. J. and C. R. Smith. 1978. Gabrieliño. In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8:
California, edited by R.F. Heizer, pp. 538-549. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.
Bean, L. J. and C. R. Smith. 1978. Serrano. In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8:
California, edited by R. F. Heizer. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.
Bean, W. and J. J. Rawls. 1983. California: An Interpretive History, 4th ed. New York, NY:
McGraw Hill.
Beattie, G. W. 1951. Origin and Early Development of Water Rights in the East San Bernardino
Valley. San Bernardino Valley Water Conservation District, Redlands, California.
Bulletin No. 4. Electronic document accessed October 2017.
http://www.highlandhistory.org/Water_History/Water_Rights-GW_Beattie.PDF
Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2017. General Land Office Records Search for Section 2
of Township 1 South, Range 3 West. Website accessed September 2017.
http://www.glorecords.blm.gov/search/default.aspx
California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP). 1990. Archaeological Resource Management
Reports (ARMR): Recommended Contents and Format.
http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1054/files/armr.pdf
California State Engineering Department (CSED). 1888. Detail Irrigation Map, San Bernardino
Sheet. On-file at the A. K. Smiley Library Heritage Room, Redlands, California.
Chartkoff, J. L. and K. K. Chartkoff. 1984. The Archaeology of California. Menlo Park, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Cotterman, C. 2006. Primary Record for 36-12265. Form on-file at the South Central Coastal
Information Center, California State University, Fullerton.
Cotterman, C. and W. Sharp. 2006. Primary Record for 36-12264/CA-SBR-12205H. Form on-
file at the South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University,
Fullerton.
Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
Highland, San Bernardino County, CA December 2017
GSPI-05-646.ARS1 71 L&L
DeWitt, et al. vs Van Leuven, et al. 1860. District Court of the First Judicial District, State of
California, County of San Bernardino, August 4, 1860. Court Case 00006. Case on-file
at the San Bernardino County Historical Archives, San Bernardino, California.
Donahue, M. C. and L. C. W. Suttle. 2017. Cram Family History. Electronic document
accessed October 2017. http://www.marilyncramdonahue.com/?p=37
ECORP Consulting, Inc. (ECORP). 2006a. Cultural Resources Survey Report for the Heather
Glen Project (TT17604), City of Highland, San Bernardino County, California. SB-5671.
Report on-file at the South Central Coastal Information Center, California State
University, Fullerton.
ECORP Consulting, Inc. (ECORP). 2006b. Update for 36-6848/CA-SBR-6848H. Form on-file
at the South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University, Fullerton.
ECORP Consulting, Inc. (ECORP). 2006c. Update for 36-7434/CA-SBR-7434H. Form on-file
at the South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University, Fullerton.
Eighmey, J., I. Strudwick, R. Phillips, P. McHenry, J. Boughton, and R. Collett. 1993a.
Archaeological Site Record Update for 36-6848/CA-SBR-6848H. Form on-file at the
South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University, Fullerton.
Eighmey, J., I. Strudwick, R. Phillips, P. McHenry, J. Boughton, and R. Collett. 1993b.
Archaeological Site Record Update for 36-6853/CA-SBR-6853H. Form on-file at the
South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University, Fullerton.
Fagan, B. M. 2003. Before California: An Archaeologist Looks at Our Earliest Inhabitants. New
York, NY: Alta Mira Press.
Gallegos & Associates. 1993. Cultural Resource Survey Report for the Concordia Homes
Project, City of Highland, California. SB-2828. Report on-file at the South Central
Coastal Information Center, California State University, Fullerton.
Hall, W. H. 1888. Irrigation in California [Southern]: The Field, Water-Supply, and Works,
Organization and Operation in San Diego, San Bernardino, and Los Angeles Counties:
The Second Part of the Report of the State Engineer of California on Irrigation and the
Irrigation Question. On-file at the A. K. Smiley Library Heritage Room, Redlands,
California.
Hardesty, D. and B. Little. 2000. Assessing Site Significance: A Guide for Archaeologists and
Historians. Walnut Creek, CA: Alta Mira Press.
Harley, R. B. 1989. Did Mission San Gabriel have Two Asistencias? The Case of Rancho San
Bernardino. San Bernardino County Museum Association Quarterly 36.
Heizer, R. F. (ed). 1978. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8: California. Washington,
DC: Smithsonian Institution.
Highland, City of. 2006. City of Highlands General Plan. Website accessed August 2017.
http://www.ci.highland.ca.us/GeneralPlan/
Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
Highland, San Bernardino County, CA December 2017
GSPI-05-646.ARS1 72 L&L
Highland Area Historical Society (HAHS). 2017. Research Resources of Water History in the
Highland Area. Website accessed October 2017.
http://www.highlandhistory.org/waterhistory.php
Johnston, F. J. 1965 (Revised 1980). The Serrano Indians of Southern California. Malki
Museum Brochure No. 2. Banning, CA: Malki Museum Press.
Jones, T. L. and K. A. Klar (eds). 2007. California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture and
Complexity. Lanham, MD: Alta Mira Press.
JRP Historical Consulting Services and California Department of Transportation (JRP and
Caltrans). 2000. Water Conveyance Systems in California: Historic Context
Development and Evaluation Procedures. Electronic document accessed October 2017.
http://www.dot.ca.gov/ser/downloads/cultural/CanalsDitches.pdf
Kroeber, A. L. 1925. Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of Ethnology Bulletin No.
78. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.
Kroeber, A. L. and L. Hooper. 1978. Studies in Cahuilla Culture Classics in California
Anthropology no. 4. Banning, CA: Malki Museum Press.
L&L Environmental, Inc. (L&L). 2017. Updated Jurisdictional Delineation for the Greenspot
Project Site, City of Highland, County of San Bernardino, California.
Lugo, D. J. de C. 1950. Life of a Rancher (Vida de un Ranchero). Document dated 1877 and
translated in Historical Society of Southern California Quarterly 33.
Matti, J. C., D. M. Morton, B. F. Cox, and K. J. Kendrick. 2003. Geologic map of the Redlands
7.5’ Quadrangle, San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, California. Digital map
accessed October 2017. https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2003/0302/pdf/red_map.pdf
McKenna, J. 1992. Update for 36-6848/CA-SBR-6848H. Form on-file at the South Central
Coastal Information Center, California State University, Fullerton.
Moratto, M. J. 1984. California Archaeology. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
National Park Service (NPS). 1991. How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation.
National Register Bulletin 15. Washington, DC: National Park Service.
Nationwide Environmental Title Research (NETR). 2017. Historic Aerials and Topographic
Maps. Website accessed October 2017. http://www.historicaerials.com
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2017. Web Soil Survey Search. Website
accessed October 2017.
https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx
Oswalt, W. H. 1988. This Land Was Theirs, A Study of North American Indians. Mountain
View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Co.
Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
Highland, San Bernardino County, CA December 2017
GSPI-05-646.ARS1 73 L&L
Phillips, R. and P. McHenry. 1993. Archaeological Site Record for 36-7434/CA-SBR-7434H.
Form on-file at the South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University,
Fullerton.
Quales, K. n.d. A Brief History of the North Fork Canal, San Bernardino, CA. Electronic
document accessed October 2017.
http://www.highlandhistory.org/Water_History/Quarles_FinalReport.pdf
Redlands, City of. 1995. Amended 2010. City of Redlands General Plan. Website accessed
September 2017.
http://cityofredlands.hosted.civiclive.com/cms/One.aspx?portalId=6255746&pageId=727
6316
Romani, G., N. Kaptain, G. Head, and T. Webb. 1990a. Archaeological Site Record for 36-
6848/CA-SBR-6848H. Form on-file at the South Central Coastal Information Center,
California State University, Fullerton.
Romani, G., N. Kaptain, G. Head, and T. Webb. 1990b. Archaeological Site Record for 36-
6853/CA-SBR-6853H. Form on-file at the South Central Coastal Information Center,
California State University, Fullerton.
San Bernardino, City of. 2017. Highland. Website accessed October 2017.
http://www.sbcity.org/about/history/streets_n_places/highland.asp
San Bernardino County Historical Archives (SB County). 2017. Email Communications
Between San Bernardino County Archives Technician Stanley Rodriguez, San
Bernardino County Archives Archivist Genevieve Preston, and L&L Archaeologist
William R. Gillean. November 8 and 9, 2017.
Scott, M. B. 1977. Development of Water Facilities in the Santa Ana River Basin, California,
1810-1968: A Compilation of Historical Notes Derived from Many Sources Describing
Ditch and Canal Companies, Diversions, and Water Rights. Report #77-398. On-file at
the Feldhym Library California Room, San Bernardino, California.
Strong, W. D. 1972. Aboriginal Society in Southern California. Banning, CA: Malki Museum.
Teal, G. 1980. Archaeological Site Record Form for 36-4220/CA-SBR-4220H. Form on-file at
the South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University, Fullerton.
Wallace, W. J. 1955. A Suggested Chronology for Southern California Coastal Archaeology.
Southwestern Journal of Anthropology. 11(3): 214-230.
Wallace, W. J. 1978. Post-Pleistocene Archeology, 9000 to 2000 B.C. In Handbook of North
American Indians, Vol. 8: California, edited by R. F. Heizer, 25-36. Washington, DC:
Smithsonian Institution.
Warren, C. N. 1968. Cultural Tradition and Ecological Adaptation on the Southern California
Coast In Archaic Prehistory in the Western United States, edited by Cynthia Irwin-
Williams, pp. 1-14. Eastern New Mexico University Contributions in Anthropology No. 1.
Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
Highland, San Bernardino County, CA December 2017
GSPI-05-646.ARS1 74 L&L
Wilke, P. J. 1978. Late Prehistoric Human Ecology at Lake Cahuilla, Coachella Valley,
California. Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research, Facility
38. University of California, Berkeley.
Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
Highland, San Bernardino County, CA December 2017
GSPI-05-646.ARS1 75 L&L
7.0) CERTIFICATION
CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached
exhibits present the data and information required for this archaeological report, and that the
facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge
and belief.
DATE: December 11, 2017 SIGNED:
PRINTED NAME: Leslie Nay Irish, CEO, L&L Environmental, Inc.
DATE: December 11, 2017 SIGNED:
PRINTED NAME: Jennifer M. Sanka, M.A., RPA, L&L Archaeologist
Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
Highland, San Bernardino County, CA December 2017
GSPI-05-646.ARS1 76 L&L
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Personnel Qualifications .......................................................................................77
Appendix B: SCCIC Records Search Form ...............................................................................88
Appendix C: Photographs .........................................................................................................90
Appendix D: Sacred Lands Search ...........................................................................................94
Appendix E: Native American Coordination ............................................................................. 100
Appendix F: DPR 523 Forms .................................................................................................. 108
Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
Highland, San Bernardino County, CA December 2017
GSPI-05-646.ARS1 77 L&L
APPENDIX A
Personnel Qualifications
Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
Highland, San Bernardino County, CA December 2017
GSPI-05-646.ARS1 78 L&L
Leslie Nay Irish
Principal Project Manager
Cal Trans (CT) 022889
Leslie Irish is the qualifying principal for WBE certification with CALTRANS, with both a State
and Federal designation as a 100% WBE and Small Business Enterprise. Ms. Irish has multi-
disciplinary experience in environmental, engineering, land development and construction
management and administration.
Ms. Irish has more than 25 years of experience as a project manager on public and private
NEPA / CEQA projects overseeing the areas of biology, archaeology, paleontology, regulatory
services and state and federal level permit processing.
Ms. Irish is a certified to perform wetland / jurisdictional delineations and holds a responsible
party permit for performing archaeological and paleontological investigations on (BLM) public
lands. She has attended the desert tortoise handling class, passed the practicum and the test
and was awarded a certificate. She remains an active participant in the oversight of mitigation
monitoring and reporting programs, the installation and monitoring of revegetation programs and
the development of project impact mitigation plans. Her principal office duties include a review
of all environmental documents authored by the firm; oversight of regulatory permits, agency
consultation and negotiations; impact mitigation review; and long-term permit compliance. Her
field duties are more limited but include delineations / compliance monitoring and reporting
(coordination), constraints analysis, plan for corrective measures and resolution of “problem
projects”.
Ms. Irish’s responsibilities include direct contact with clients/project proponents, scientists and
agencies and involve her in all aspects of the project from a request for proposal to project
completion. Ms. Irish has a complex understanding of the industry from various perspectives.
As a result, she uses her personal understanding of team member positions and responsibilities
in her role as the principal management and quality control lead.
CREDENTIALS AND PERMITS
ACOE, Wetlands Delineation Certification Update, 2015
ACOE, Advanced Wetlands Delineation and Management, 2001
ACOE, Wetlands Delineation and Management, 1999, Certificate No. 1257
U.S. Government, Permit for Archaeology & Paleontology on Federal Lands, Responsible
Party
MOU, County of Riverside, Archaeology, Biology, Paleontology and Wetlands ID/Delineation
CALTRANS WBE Certification
Public Utilities Commission, WBE Certified
WBENC, WBE Certified
EDUCATION
Certificate in Project Management, Initiating and Planning Projects, UC, Irvine, June 20, 2015
Foundations of Business Strategy, Darden School of Business, UVA, Jan 2014
Design Thinking for Business Innovation (audit), Darden School of Business, UVA, Nov 2013
Update, Storm Water Management BMPs, University of California, Riverside Extension, 2005
Certificate, Wetland Delineation & Management, ACOE, 2000 and Advanced Certificate: 2002
Certificate Program, Field Natural Environment, University of California, Riverside, 1993
Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
Highland, San Bernardino County, CA December 2017
GSPI-05-646.ARS1 79 L&L
Leslie Nay Irish
Continued
Certificate Program, Light Construction, Developmental Management, University of California,
Riverside, 1987
Certificate Program, Construction Technologies, Administrative Management, Riverside City
College, 1987
License B-General and C-Specialties (Concrete/Masonry) and General Law sections, 1986
Core Teaching and Administrative Management, Primary (K-3) and Early Childhood, Cal State,
San Bernardino, Lifelong Learning Program, 1973-2005
Behavioral Sciences and Anthropology, Chaffey and Valley Jr./Community Colleges, 1973 –
1976
PROFESSIONAL HISTORY
L&L Environmental, Inc. - Principal, Project Manager / Principal in Charge: 1993 - present:
Site assessments, surveys, jurisdictional delineations, permit processing, agency
consultation/negotiation, impact mitigation, project management, coordination, report writing,
technical editing, and quality control.
Marketing Consultant - Principal: 1990 - 1993: Engineering / architectural, environmental, and
water resource management consultant.
Warmington Homes - Jr. Project Manager: 1989 - 1990: Residential development, Riverside
and Los Angeles Counties.
The Buie Corporation - Processor / Coordinator: 1987 - 1990: The Corona Ranch, Master
Planned Community.
Psomas & Associates - Processor / Coordinator- 1986 - 1987: Multiple civil engineering and
land surveying projects.
Irish Construction Company – Builder Partner: (concurrently with above) 1979 - 1990:
General construction, residential building (spec. housing), and concrete and masonry
product construction.
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS
Member, Building Industry Association
Member, Southern California Botanists
Member, Archaeological Institute of America
Member, Society for California Archaeology
Member, California Chamber of Commerce
Member, CalFlora
Member, San Bernardino County Museum Associates
Member, Orange County Natural History Museum Associates
Life Member, Society of Wetland Scientists
1994-97 President, Business Development Association, Inland Empire
1993-94 Executive Vice President, Building Industry Association, Riverside County
2010 Chair of the Old House Interest Group – Redlands Area Historical Society
SYMPOSIA, SEMINARS, AND WORKSHOPS
Assembly Bill 52 Tribal Consultation Process Overview. Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians
Cultural Resources Group. Temecula, CA. October 2015
ACOE Compensatory Mitigation Workshop – Wilshire Blvd Office, July 16, 2015
May 27, 2015, CWA Rule, Update, San Diego CA, October 20-23, 2015
Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
Highland, San Bernardino County, CA December 2017
GSPI-05-646.ARS1 80 L&L
Leslie Nay Irish
Continued
ACOE 2 Day Workshop, Mitigation Rule & Mitigation Checklist, Carlsbad, March 20, 2015
Desert Tortoise Handling Class, update (DT Consortium / Joint Agencies USFWS/CDFG) 2013
Update
Bedrock Food Processing Centers in Riverside County, TLMA, 2009
Nexus Geology-Archaeology, Riverside County, TLMA, 2009
Desert Tortoise Handling Class, (DT Consortium / Joint Agencies USFWS/CDFG), 2008
Certificate Granted
Ecological Islands and Processes (vernal pools, alkali wetlands, etc.), Southern California
Botanists, 2004
Low Impact Development, State Water Board Academy, 2004
Inland Empire Transportation Symposium, 2004
Western Riverside County MSHCP Review and Implementation Seminar, 2004
Field Botany and Taxonomy, Riverside City College, 2002
Construction Storm Water Compliance Workshop, BIA, 2002
Identifying Human Bone: Conducted by L&L Environmental, County Coroner and Page
Museum, 2002
CEQA/NEPA Issues in Historic Preservation, UCLA, 2000
CEQA and Biological Resources, University of California, Riverside, 2000
CEQA Law Update 2000, UCLA
Land Use Law/Planning Conference, University of California, Riverside
CALNAT “95”, University of California, Riverside
Desert Fauna, University of California, Riverside
Habitat Restoration/Ecology, University of California, Riverside
Geology of Yosemite and Death Valley, University of California, Riverside
San Andreas Fault: San Bernardino to Palmdale, University of California, Riverside
Historic Designations and CEQA Law, UCLA
Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
Highland, San Bernardino County, CA December 2017
GSPI-05-646.ARS1 81 L&L
Jennifer M. Sanka, M.A., RPA
Principal Investigator
Archaeologist
Ms. Sanka has gained more than 17 years of archaeological fieldwork and project-related
experience in the U.S., including projects in Alaska, Arizona, California, Indiana, Maryland,
Nevada, Ohio, Oregon, and North Carolina. She has conducted all aspects of archaeological
fieldwork; has authored and provided third party assessments of numerous cultural resources
sections for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) environmental impact reports (EIR),
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) environmental impact statements (EIS), NEPA
environmental assessments (EA), constraints analyses and CEQA initial studies; and has
certified more than 75 CEQA and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)-
compliant documents. She is a Registered Professional Archaeologist ([RPA] #15927, 2006),
meets the Secretary of Interior (SOI) Standards for Archaeology and has served as a Principal
Investigator on projects reviewed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Forest
Service (USFS), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, and the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA). Ms. Sanka has spent over a decade working in the archaeological field
in southern California. She is a Riverside County Certified Archaeologist (#103, 2007) and is a
Certified San Diego County CEQA Consultant for Archaeological Resources (2010). She is also
qualified as a Principal Investigator for the BLM Cultural Resources Use Permit (CRUP) for the
State of California and the State of Nevada (Historic Resources).
PROFESSIONAL HISTORY
2014-present – Archaeologist, L&L Environmental, Inc. Redlands, CA. Perform field survey
and site recordation for projects in southern California. Author, certify, and serve as the
Principal Investigator for projects in southern California.
2014 – Cultural Resources Specialist, Burns & McDonnell. Kansas City, MO. Perform field
survey and site recordation for projects in Carroll, Howard, Miami, and White Counties, IN.
2009-2014 – Associate Project Manager/Archaeologist, Atkins. San Bernardino, CA.
Performed field surveys and subsurface testing programs throughout California and Alaska.
Authored and certified numerous survey and testing program reports. Served as an
Associate Project Manager, Principal Investigator, and Regional Cultural Lead for projects
throughout California and Alaska.
2006-2009 – Project Manager/Archaeologist, Michael Brandman Associates (currently First
Carbon Solutions). Irvine, CA. Performed field surveys, subsurface testing programs, and
data recovery projects throughout southern California. Authored and certified numerous
survey and testing program reports. Served as a Project Manager and Principal Investigator
for projects throughout southern California.
2005-2006 – Archaeological Field Technician, ASM Affiliates. Pasadena, CA and Reno, NV.
Performed field surveys, subsurface testing programs, and data recovery projects in
Barstow (Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center [MCAGCC]), Fontana, Hemet, Moreno
Valley, Palm Springs, Ridgecrest (China Lake Naval Air Warfare Station), and Twentynine
Palms (MCAGCC), CA.
2005-2006 – Archaeological Field Technician, EDAW, Inc. (currently AECOM). San Diego and
Los Angeles, CA. Performed field surveys and data recovery projects in El Centro
(Chocolate Mountains Aerial Gunnery Range), Los Angeles (Los Angeles Public School #9
Cemetery Relocation), and Oceanside (Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Air Station), CA.
Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
Highland, San Bernardino County, CA December 2017
GSPI-05-646.ARS1 82 L&L
Jennifer M. Sanka, M.A., RPA
Continued
2003-2004 – Archaeological Laboratory Technician, TRC-Garrow Associates, Inc. (currently
TRC Solutions). Durham, NC. Performed subsurface testing programs and data recovery
projects in Pokomoke City, MD (18-WO-183), Greensboro, NC, and Fayetteville, NC (Fort
Bragg Army Airborne and Special Forces Installation). Completed artifact curation and
collection management for 18-WO-183 and for various Fort Bragg collections.
2001-2003 – Teaching and Research Assistant, Duke University, Department of Religion.
Durham, NC. Screened films, led group discussions, graded documents, and performed
research on the Reformation Period to support faculty research projects.
2000 and 2002 – Trench Supervisor, North Carolina State University, Department of History.
Aqaba, Kingdom of Jordan. Supervised up to five Jordanian archaeological
technicians/laborers during trench excavations for the Roman Aqaba Project (RAP).
Experience included the excavation of a probe along the Byzantine Era curtain wall and
salvage archaeology within a Nabatean–Early Roman transition period domestic complex.
1999 – Student, Miami University, Department of Anthropology. Oxford, OH. Completed
salvage excavation at Milford Works I.
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS
Society for California Archaeology
Register of Professional Archaeologists
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
2015 – Assembly Bill 52 Tribal Consultation Process Overview. Pechanga Band of Luiseno
Indians Cultural Resources Group. Temecula, CA.
2013 – Advanced Seminar: Reaching Successful Outcomes in Section 106 Review. Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP). Palm Springs, CA.
2010 – The Natural and Cultural History of Ancient Lake Cahuilla. County of Riverside
Transportation and Land Management Agency Continuing Education Professional Seminar.
Palm Desert, CA.
2010 – Connecting the Dots with a Regional Perspective: Village Footprints (Pechanga Cultural
Resources Department). County of Riverside Transportation and Land Management
Agency Continuing Education Professional Seminar. Palm Desert, CA.
2009 – Geology for Archaeologists. County of Riverside Transportation and Land Management
Agency Continuing Education Professional Seminar. Palm Desert, CA.
2009 – Riverside County History and Research Resources. County of Riverside Transportation
and Land Management Agency Continuing Education Professional Seminar. Palm Desert,
CA.
2007 – An Introduction to Professional Practice under Section 106 of the NHPA. SWCA.
Mission Viejo, CA.
2006 – Project Management Fundamentals. ZweigWhite AIA/CES course. Michael Brandman
Associates, Irvine, CA.
2006 – CEQA Basics: Understanding the California Environmental Process. AEP. Chapman
University, Orange, CA.
2006 – Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Land Use Planning and the
Protection of Native American Cultural Places. AEP. Irvine, CA.
Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
Highland, San Bernardino County, CA December 2017
GSPI-05-646.ARS1 83 L&L
Jennifer M. Sanka, M.A., RPA
Continued
EDUCATION
M.A., Religion (Hebrew Bible and Archaeology) – 2003, Duke University, Durham, NC
Graduate Certificate, Women’s Studies – 2003, Duke University, Durham, NC
B.A., Anthropology, Comparative Religion (with Honors Thesis), and Classical Humanities –
2001, Miami University, Oxford, OH
Selected Project Experience
2015-2016
Requa Avenue Sewer Interceptor Project Cultural Resources Survey and State
Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB)/State Historic Preservation Officer
(SHPO) Coordination, Indio, Riverside County, CA; Valley Sanitary District.
Principal Investigator and author of a cultural resources assessment (CRA) addressing
upgrades to the existing City of Indio sewer system. This study was completed in
accordance with the SWRCB CEQA-Plus guidelines. Responsibilities included
generating the technical report, supporting memorandums, SHPO cover letter, and
SHPO review package in coordination with the SWRCB Cultural Resources Officer. In
addition, seven previously recorded resources were addressed via DPR 523 Update
Forms and one new resource was recorded. Recommendations for NRHP eligibility
were provided for resources located in the project’s APE.
2015-2016
6563 East Avenue Project Archaeological Resources Survey, City of Rancho
Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, CA; GFR Homes. Principal Investigator and
author of a Phase I CRA completed in accordance with CEQA. This project included the
recordation and CRHR evaluation of the archaeological component of an NRHP eligible
built-environment resource.
2015 APN 963-010-006 Project (TR 32323) Cultural Resources Survey, French Valley
Area, Riverside County, CA; Richland Communities. Principal Investigator and
author of a Phase I CRA addressing proposed residential development on 19.36 acres.
The study was completed in accordance with CEQA and the County of Riverside
Guidelines for Cultural Resources Review.
2012-2014
Johnson Avenue Sewer Relief Project Cultural Resources Survey and SHPO
Coordination, El Cajon, San Diego County, CA; City of El Cajon. Principal
Investigator responsible for a pedestrian survey and author of a CRA addressing
upgrades to the existing City of El Cajon sewer system. The study was performed at the
request of the City of El Cajon and was completed in accordance with the SWRCB
CEQA-Plus guidelines. Responsibilities included generating the technical report, a
Mitigation-Monitoring and Treatment Plan, and coordination with the SWRCB Cultural
Resources Officer, local Native American groups and individuals, and SHPO.
2011 Massachusetts Avenue and Boulevard Drive Sewer Main Improvements Project
Cultural Resources Survey, La Mesa, San Diego County, CA; City of La Mesa.
Principal Investigator responsible for a pedestrian field survey and author of a CRA. The
archaeological survey was completed at the request of the City of La Mesa and
considered proposed improvements to an existing sewer main. The resultant study was
completed in accordance with Section 106 of the NHPA to support ACOE permitting
efforts for the project.
Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
Highland, San Bernardino County, CA December 2017
GSPI-05-646.ARS1 84 L&L
Jennifer M. Sanka, M.A., RPA
Continued
Selected Project Experience (Continued)
2010-2011
Ivy Street Bridge Replacement Archaeological Monitoring Project, Murrieta,
Riverside County, CA; City of Murrieta. Principal Investigator for the mitigation-
monitoring program implemented for the Ivy Street Bridge Replacement Project. The
monitoring program was required by an IS-MND for the project, as well as the
recommendations of Caltrans. The IS-MND and Caltrans-compliant cultural resources
documentation identified one historic property within the Ivy Street Bridge Replacement
project site and established an ESA where all ground-disturbing activities required full-
time archaeological and Native American monitoring. The detected prehistoric
resources were documented and evaluated in the field and subsequently provided to the
Native American monitors in accordance with a Mitigation Monitoring and Resource
Treatment plan drafted by the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians. Responsibilities
included management of field crew members, coordination with Native American
monitors, and certifying the resultant report.
2007-2013
Public Safety Enterprise Communication (PSEC) Project, Orange, Imperial,
Riverside, San Bernardino, and San Diego Counties, CA; Riverside County
Facilities Management. Associate Project Manager, Principal Investigator
(Archaeology) and Cultural Resources Task Manager for the PSEC project, which
involved the placement of up to 87 new communication facilities for the county sheriff
and fire departments throughout Riverside County. Phases 1 and 2 (2007-2009)
included experience as the Principal Investigator and Cultural Resources Task Manager
for the cultural resources constraints analysis in support of an EIR-EA. Responsibilities
included conducting and managing records searches and Class III intensive pedestrian
surveys/Phase I surveys for over 165 proposed emergency services radio tower facilities
throughout Riverside County and along the Riverside County borders in Orange,
Imperial, San Bernardino, and San Diego counties. This sizable work effort included
communication and permitting efforts with several district offices of the BLM, the USFS,
and the National Park Service, as well as informal consultation efforts with local resource
agencies and numerous southern California Native American groups and individuals.
Phases 1 and 2 involved the supervision of various staff members and several
subcontracted archaeologists and architectural historians. Phase 3 (2009-2013)
included the management of mitigation compliance at all PSEC project sites, as well as
the compilation of EAs for 25 sites on BLM, USFS, ACOE, NPS, and BIA lands. All EAs
required the completion of cultural resources technical reports. Three EAs were
prepared for the BLM, one for the ACOE, and three for the BIA. The preparation of the
BIA EA documents included close coordination with the Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla
Indians and the Colorado River Indian Tribes. Additional duties included aiding the
USFS in the preparation of multiple EAs located on the San Bernardino and Cleveland
National Forests.
Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
Highland, San Bernardino County, CA December 2017
GSPI-05-646.ARS1 85 L&L
William R. Gillean, B.S.
Archaeologist
Mr. Gillean has gained more than 10 years of archaeological survey, testing, and excavation
experience in Arizona, California, and Nevada. His duties at L&L include archaeological
mitigation monitoring, Phase I surveys, California Historical Resources Information System
(CHRIS) research, Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands Search (SLS)
requests, Native American information scoping, completion of site records, and assisting senior
staff with technical reports. He has experience with a wide range of GPS data collectors,
photographic equipment, and software programs. He holds a Bachelor of Science in
Anthropology with an emphasis in Cultural Resource Management from Cal Poly, Pomona.
PROFESSIONAL HISTORY
2015-present – Archaeologist, L&L Environmental, Inc. Redlands, CA. Performs field surveys,
research, and completes site recordation for projects in southern California. Contributes to
technical reports.
2013-present – Archaeologist, First Carbon Solutions. Irvine, CA. Performs archaeological
mitigation monitoring in San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, California.
2010-2015 – Archaeologist, Atkins. San Bernardino, CA. Performed field surveys, research,
completed site records, contributed to technical reports, assisted with Native American
information scoping letters, and coordinated with the NAHC for SLS requests. Performed
archaeological mitigation monitoring in San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, California.
2006-2010 – Archaeologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service, Skyforest,
CA. Performed field surveys, subsurface testing programs, and data recovery projects
throughout the San Bernardino and Angeles National Forests in southern California.
Completed site records, authored and contributed to technical reports, conducted
archaeological reconnaissance and inventory of fire suppression activities in support of the
Butler II, Grass Valley, Slide, and Station fires. Made recommendations for minimizing
impacts to archeological sites and performed mitigation monitoring in archaeologically
sensitive areas during project implementation.
2004-2007 – Archaeologist, L&L Environmental, Inc. Corona, CA. Performed field surveys,
research, subsurface testing programs, and data recovery projects in Riverside, San
Bernardino, and Inyo Counties, California. Contributed to technical reports and performed
archaeological mitigation monitoring.
2003-2004 – Field Technician, Center for Archaeological Research, California State University,
Bakersfield. Bakersfield, CA. Provided technical support for the archaeological
reconnaissance and inventory of over 40 miles of the Southern California Edison power line
corridor located within the San Bernardino National Forest.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
2010 – Applied NEPA. USDA Forest Service. San Bernardino, CA.
2008 – The Section 106 Essentials. USDA Forest Service. Sacramento, CA.
EDUCATION
B.S., Anthropology (Cultural Resource Management Emphasis) – 2002, Cal Poly, Pomona, CA
Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
Highland, San Bernardino County, CA December 2017
GSPI-05-646.ARS1 86 L&L
William R. Gillean, B.S.
Continued
Selected Project Experience
Murrieta Hills Specific Plan, Murrieta, Riverside County, CA. Field technician for the
pedestrian survey of over 900 acres of the Murrieta Hills. Project responsibilities
included intensive pedestrian survey, relocation and updating of previously recorded
sites, and recordation of sites not previously recorded or encountered.
Habitat Conservation Plan for the Federally Endangered Delhi Sands Flower-
Loving Fly, Colton, San Bernardino County, CA. Field technician for the City of
Colton Habitat Conservation Plan for the Federally Endangered Delhi Sands Flower-
Loving Fly Project. This project considers the issuance of an incidental take permit by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) under Section 10 of the Endangered
Species Act, and requires USFWS review under Section 106 of the NHPA. The project
area considers approximately 150-acres of land proposed to be subject to the permit,
and was completed at the request of The Altum Group for the City of Colton.
Responsibilities included completing a records search at the AIC, Native American
information-scoping, field survey, and contributions to the technical report.
Safe Routes to School Project, Palm Springs, Riverside County, CA. Field
technician responsible for assisting with the completion of an ASR and an HPSR in
support of the City of Palm Springs Safe Routes to School Project. This FHWA Local
Assistance Funding Project requires Caltrans-compliant documentation and Caltrans
review under Section 106 of the NHPA. The proposed project includes the installation of
a variety of medians, bulb-outs and chokers designed to control the flow of traffic in the
vicinity of local elementary and middle schools. The project area consists of ten non-
contiguous sites found throughout the entire City. Responsibilities included completing a
records search at the Eastern Information Center (EIC), Native American information
scoping, field survey, and contributions to the technical report.
Adelfa Booster Station Redesign Survey, Community of Lakeland Village,
Riverside County, CA. Field technician assisting with a Phase I Cultural Resources
Assessment addressing upgrades to the existing Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District
(EVMWD) distribution system. The study was performed at the request of the EVMWD
and was completed in accordance with CEQA. Responsibilities included completing a
records search at the EIC, Native American information scoping, field survey, and
contributions to the technical report.
Temescal Canyon Road Improvements Survey, Corona Vicinity, Riverside County,
CA. Field technician responsible for assisting with the field survey and completion of a
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for proposed improvements to Temescal
Canyon Road. The study was performed at the request of the Riverside County
Redevelopment Agency and was completed in accordance with CEQA. One previously
recorded prehistoric archaeological site was detected within the project area and was
recommended ineligible for inclusion in the CRHR. The Cultural Resources Assessment
was submitted to the USACE to support permitting efforts for the project.
Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
Highland, San Bernardino County, CA December 2017
GSPI-05-646.ARS1 87 L&L
William R. Gillean, B.S.
Continued
Selected Project Experience (Continued)
Ivy Street Bridge Replacement Archaeological Monitoring Project, Murrieta,
Riverside County, CA. Monitoring Crew Chief for the mitigation monitoring program
implemented for the Ivy Street Bridge Replacement Project. All detected prehistoric
resources were documented and evaluated in the field and subsequently provided to the
Native American monitors in accordance with a Mitigation Monitoring and Resource
Treatment plan drafted by the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians. Responsibilities
included coordination with Native American monitors, completing DPR 523 Forms, and
co-authoring the resultant report.
Baldy Mesa Unauthorized OHV Rehabilitation Project on the Front Country Ranger
District, San Bernardino National Forest, CA. Archaeologist responsible for
pedestrian survey of several miles of unauthorized OHV trails, the relocation and update
of previously recorded sites, location and recordation of new sites, and mitigation
monitoring during project implementation.
San Sevaine Hazard Tree Removal Project on the Front Country Ranger District,
San Bernardino National Forest, CA. Archaeologist responsible for the relocation and
update of previously recorded sites, location and recordation of new sites, and
performed mitigation-monitoring during project implementation.
Butler II, Grass Valley, and Slide Fires Survey Project on the Mountain Top Ranger
District, San Bernardino National Forest, CA. Conducted archeological
reconnaissance/inventory of fire suppression dozer lines in support of the Butler II,
Grass Valley, and Slide fires. Made recommendations for minimizing impacts to
archeological sites, and performed mitigation monitoring in archaeologically sensitive
areas.
Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
Highland, San Bernardino County, CA December 2017
GSPI-05-646.ARS1 88 L&L
APPENDIX B
SCCIC Records Search Form
Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
Highland, San Bernardino County, CA December 2017
GSPI-05-646.ARS1 89 L&L
Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
Highland, San Bernardino County, CA December 2017
GSPI-05-646.ARS1 90 L&L
APPENDIX C
Photographs
Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
Highland, San Bernardino County, CA December 2017
GSPI-05-646.ARS1 91 L&L
Photograph 1. Overview of the northern
project area boundary, taken from the
northeast project corner. View to the west.
Photograph 2. Overview of the northern
project area boundary, taken from the
northwest project corner. View to the east.
Photograph 3. Overview of the western project
area boundary, taken from the northwest
project corner. View to the south.
Photograph 4. Overview of the western project
area boundary, taken from near the center of
the boundary. View to the south.
Photograph 5. Overview of the southern
project area boundary, taken from the
southwest project corner. View to the east.
Photograph 6. Overview of the southern
project area boundary, taken from the
southeast project corner. View to the west.
Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
Highland, San Bernardino County, CA December 2017
GSPI-05-646.ARS1 92 L&L
Photograph 7. Overview of the eastern project
area boundary, taken from near the center of
the boundary. View to the south.
Photograph 8. Overview of the eastern project
area boundary, taken from near the center of
the boundary. View to the north.
Photograph 9. Overview of an area exhibiting
excellent surface visibility and modern refuse.
View to the south.
Photograph 10. Overview of an area exhibiting
excellent surface visibility and modern refuse.
View to the east.
Photograph 11. Overview of construction
debris, facing east.
Photograph 12. Overview of cobble and
mortar, facing south.
Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
Highland, San Bernardino County, CA December 2017
GSPI-05-646.ARS1 93 L&L
Photograph 13. View of the eastern extent of
36-6848/CA-SBR-6848H within the project
area, facing west.
Photograph 14. View of the western extent of
36-6848/CA-SBR-6848H within the project
area, facing east.
Photograph 15. Overview of the recorded
location of 36-6853/CA-SBR-6853H. View to
the west.
Photograph 16. Overview of 36-7434/CA-
SBR-7434H, facing north.
Photograph 17. Overview of 36-12264/CA-
SBR-12205H, facing north.
Photograph 18. Overview of 36-12265 taken
from near the eastern site boundary. View to
the west.
Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
Highland, San Bernardino County, CA December 2017
GSPI-05-646.ARS1 94 L&L
APPENDIX D
Sacred Lands Search
Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
Highland, San Bernardino County, CA December 2017
GSPI-05-646.ARS1 95 L&L
Sacred Lands File & Native American Contacts List Request
Native American Heritage Commission
1550 Harbor Blvd, Suite 100
West Sacramento, CA 95691
916-373-3710
916-373-5471 – Fax
nahc@nahc.ca.gov
Information Below is Required for a Sacred Lands File Search
Project: HeatherGlen Project/City of Highland Tract 17604 (L&L Project
Number GSPI-05-646)
County: San Bernardino Count
USGS Quadrangle Name: Redlands, CA
Township: 1 South Range: 3 West Section(s): 2
Company/Firm/Agency: L&L Environmental, Inc.
Contact Person: Jennifer M. Sanka, Archaeologist
Street Address: Physical Address – 721 Nevada Street, Suite 307 // Mailing
Address - 700 East Redlands Boulevard, #U351
City: Redlands, CA Zip: 92373
Phone: 909-335-9897
Fax: 909-335-9893
Email: JSanka@llenviroinc.com
Project Description:
The proposed project is the construction of a residential development as
outlined in Tract 17604. The project occupies approximately 60 acres and
is generally located in the southwestern portion of San Bernardino County,
California. Specifically, it can be found within Section 2 of T1S, R3W as
shown on the USGS Redlands, CA 7.5’ topographic quadrangle map
Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
Highland, San Bernardino County, CA December 2017
GSPI-05-646.ARS1 96 L&L
Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
Highland, San Bernardino County, CA December 2017
GSPI-05-646.ARS1 97 L&L
Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
Highland, San Bernardino County, CA December 2017
GSPI-05-646.ARS1 98 L&L
Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
Highland, San Bernardino County, CA December 2017
GSPI-05-646.ARS1 99 L&L
Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
Highland, San Bernardino County, CA December 2017
GSPI-05-646.ARS1 100 L&L
APPENDIX E
Native American Coordination
Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
Highland, San Bernardino County, CA December 2017
GSPI-05-646.ARS1 101 L&L
Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
Highland, San Bernardino County, CA December 2017
GSPI-05-646.ARS1 102 L&L
Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
Highland, San Bernardino County, CA December 2017
GSPI-05-646.ARS1 103 L&L
Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
Highland, San Bernardino County, CA December 2017
GSPI-05-646.ARS1 104 L&L
Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
Highland, San Bernardino County, CA December 2017
GSPI-05-646.ARS1 105 L&L
Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
Highland, San Bernardino County, CA December 2017
GSPI-05-646.ARS1 106 L&L
Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
Highland, San Bernardino County, CA December 2017
GSPI-05-646.ARS1 107 L&L
Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Heatherglen/Tract 17604 Project
Highland, San Bernardino County, CA December 2017
GSPI-05-646.ARS1 108 L&L
APPENDIX F
DPR 523 Forms
36-6848/CA-SBR-6848H ......................................................................................................... 109
36-6853/CA-SBR-6853H ......................................................................................................... 120
36-7434/CA-SBR-7434H ......................................................................................................... 123
36-12264/CA-SBR-12205H ..................................................................................................... 127
36-12265 ................................................................................................................................. 131
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\Figures
Date: 05/30/19
Project Vicinity Map
Project
Site
Map
Project Area Map
Figure 2N:\3098\Figures
Date: 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\Figures
Date: 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 Intersection
Peak Hour VolumesAM / PM
Study Intersections!!#
Average Daily
Traffic 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 Intersection
Peak 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 Intersection
Peak 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 Intersection
Peak 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 Intersection
Peak 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.
Prepared for
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water
District
March 2016
Final Environmental Impact Report
SCH # 2015101058
STERLING NATURAL RESOURCE CENTER
EXHIBIT "A"
Due to the size of this document, click here to be directed to the entire
document which is located on EVWD's website
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
Prepared for
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water
District
December 2015
Draft Environmental Impact Report
STERLING NATURAL RESOURCE CENTER
Click here to be directed to Draft EIR on EVWD's website
B O AR D AGE N D A S TAF F R E P ORT
Agenda Item #5.
Meeting Date: January 27, 2021
Dis c ussion Item
To: G o verning Board Memb ers
F rom: G eneral Manager/C EO
Subject: C ons id er Approval o f P rojec t Mo d ificatio ns to the S terling Natural R esourc e C enter
R E C O MME N D AT IO N:
F ollowing appro val b y the Board o f Direc to rs o f Ad d end um No . 2 to the Enviro nmental Imp act R eport (EIR )
for the S terling Natural R es o urc e C enter (S NR C ), staff recommends that the Bo ard of Direc to rs appro ve the
modific atio ns to the S terling Natural R es o urce C enter (S NR C ) as desc rib ed in Addend um No. 2.
B AC KGR O UN D / AN ALYS IS :
As lead agenc y und er C alifo rnia Environmental Q uality Act (C E Q A) G uid elines sec tion 15051, the S an
Bernard ino Valley Municipal Water Dis tric t (Valley Dis trict) prep ared and c ertified an Environmental Impac t
R ep o rt (EI R ) in March of 2016 fo r the S terling Natural R es o urce C enter (S NR C or P ro jec t). T he P ro jec t, to
b e loc ated in the C ity o f Highland, would treat was tewater generated in the Eas t Valley Water Dis tric t (E VW D
o r District) service area for benefic ial reus e in the Upper S anta Ana R iver waters hed. T he tertiary-treated
wastewater fro m the S NR C wo uld b e conveyed to o ne or mo re identified dis charge p o ints in C ity C reek, the
Eas t Twin C reek S preading G ro und s , o r the R edland s Basins , fo r perc o latio n into the ground water bas in,
augmenting lo cal water s upplies .
E VW D als o c ertified the EI R o n Marc h 23, 2016 as a res ponsible agenc y. In 2018, the lead agency ro le fo r the
S NR C was trans ferred fro m Valley District to EVW D. In July 2019, as lead agency, EVW D ad o p ted
R es o lutio n 2019.11 ad o p ting Ad d end um No. 1 to the 2016 EI R . Ad d end um No. 1 evaluated s p ecified
o p erational c hanges to the S NR C wastewater treatment facility that did not c reate new o r increas ed
enviro nmental impac ts b eyo nd tho s e analyzed and mitigated in the EIR . R esolution 2021.05 ad o p ting
Ad d endum No. 2 to the 2016 EI R has b een p repared and s ubmitted fo r adoption b y the EVW D Bo ard of
Directo rs . Addendum No. 2 evaluates two newly-p roposed mo d ificatio ns to the P rojec t that wo uld allo w: (1) the
recharge o f S NR C tertiary-treated water into the gro und water bas in at two additional rec harge basin lo c ations in
the C ity of Highland; and (2) the extens io n of the 2016 E I R -c ertified treated water c o nveyanc e p ip eline sys tem
to the two new rec harge basins . T he newly proposed recharge s ites are the Weaver Bas ins , to be loc ated at C lub
View Drive and G reens pot R oad, and the P lunge C reek Bas ins , to be lo cated s o uth o f G reens p o t R o ad ,
b etween S R -210 and O range S treet.
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
T he two mod ificatio ns to the S NR C that were evaluated in Ad d endum No. 2 will s erve to impro ve the o verall
P ro ject b y providing two additio nal recharge loc ations for the S NR C tertiary-treated water. T hes e two s ites will
in turn help to ens ure that the P rojec t’s rec harge will meet or exc eed all app licable gro und water q uality standards
and requirements. F ollo wing adoptio n of Ad d endum No . 2 by the E VW D Bo ard o f Directo rs as the
ap p ro p riate C EQ A d oc ument fo r two these mo d ific ations , s taff rec o mmend s that the EVW D Bo ard of
Directo rs ap p ro ve implementatio n of thes e mo d ificatio ns .
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 and the Dis tric t's legal C ouns el.
F IS C AL IMPAC T
T his p ro jec t is ap p roved in the F Y 2020-21 C apital I mprovement P ro gram in the amount of $81,000,000.
ATTACH M E N TS:
Description Type
Resolution 2021.05 Resolutio n Letter
Appro ved Resolutio n 2019.11 Resolutio n Letter
FINAL Certified SN R C EIR Exhibit
Draft E IR S N R C Backup Material
East Valley Water District
Resolution 2021.05
Page 1 of 4
RESOLUTION 2021.05
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT ADOPTING ADDENDUM NO. 2
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 March 23, 2016, in its role as a responsible agency, the EVWD Board of
Directors also approved and certified the EIR for the SNRC; 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, mitigation, monitoring, and reporting responsibilities for the
SNRC Project as lead agency; and
WHEREAS, on July 24 2019, EVWD’s Board of Directors voted to approve and adopt an
Addendum (Addendum No. 1) to the 2016 EIR that authorized specific modifications to the SNRC
Project, including making findings pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21166 and CEQA
East Valley Water District
Resolution 2021.05
Page 2 of 4
Guidelines sections 15162-15164 that Addendum No. 1 satisfied all the requirements of CEQA
and was appropriate to serve as the required environmental documentation for the SNRC Project
modifications; and
WHEREAS, EVWD now proposes to further modify the SNRC Project to authorize: (1)
the recharge of SNRC-treated water into the groundwater basin at two additional recharge
locations, Weaver Basins and Plunge Creek Basins, both in the City of Highland; and (2) the
extension of the 2016 EIR-certified treated water conveyance pipeline system to the two new
recharge basins; 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 newly 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 new 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 newly proposed modifications to the SNRC Project, and
based on ESA’s evaluation of the environmental impact of said modifications, ESA prepared
Addendum No. 2 pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164; and
WHEREAS, EVWD’s Board of Directors has reviewed and considered the information,
findings and conclusions contained in Addendum No. 2 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. Addendum No. 2 was presented to the East Valley Water District Board of
Directors on January 27, 2021 and considered by the Board of Directors at its regularly scheduled
meeting of January 27, 2021, and had been independently reviewed and considered by the
members of the Board of Directors prior to that meeting.
2. Addendum No. 2 was prepared for the newly proposed 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.
East Valley Water District
Resolution 2021.05
Page 3 of 4
3. Based upon the evidence submitted and as demonstrated by the analysis included
in Addendum No. 2, 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 newly 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 significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant
effects; and
b) The newly 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 newly proposed modifications to the SNRC Project, certified
EIR, Addendum No. 1, and Addendum No. 2 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 Addendum No. 1 and Addendum No. 2, 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 Addendum No. 2 for the newly
proposed modifications to the SNRC Project.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 27th day of January, 2021.
Ayes:
Noes:
_______________________________
David E. Smith
Board Chairman
East Valley Water District
Resolution 2021.05
Page 4 of 4
January 27, 2021
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of Resolution
2021.1 adopted by the Board of Directors of East Valley Water District at its Regular Meeting held
January 27, 2021.
ATTEST:
___________________________________
John Mura
Secretary, Board of Directors
Prepared for
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water
District
March 2016
Final Environmental Impact Report
SCH # 2015101058
STERLING NATURAL RESOURCE CENTER
EXHIBIT "A"
Due to the size of this document, click here to be directed to the entire
document which is located on EVWD's website
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
Prepared for
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water
District
December 2015
Draft Environmental Impact Report
STERLING NATURAL RESOURCE CENTER
Click here to be directed to Draft EIR on EVWD's website