Crystal Geyser Roxane: Beverage Bottling Plant

Transcription

Final Environmental Impact Report
Crystal Geyser Roxane:
Beverage Bottling Plant
Light Industrial Project
SCH#2002121051
Submitted to:
Inyo County Planning Department
Submitted by:
Quad Knopf, Inc.
April, 2005
Final Environmental Impact Report
CRYSTAL GEYSER ROXANE:
Light Industrial Project
SCH #2002121051
Submitted to:
Inyo County Planning Department
Jan Larsen, Senior Planner
168 North Edwards Street
Independence, CA 93526
(760) 878-0263
Submitted by:
Quad Knopf, Inc.
Eugene E. Smith, AICP, Principal-in-Charge & Project Manager
One Sierragate Plaza, Suite 270C
Roseville, CA 95678
(916) 784-7823
April, 2005
02426
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1 – Introduction
1.1
1.2
1-1
Purpose
Scope and Format
1-1
1-1
Section 2 – Overview of Comments Received
2.1
2.2
2.3
2-1
Public Review and Comment Procedures
Inyo County’s CEQA Procedures
Agencies and Individuals Who Commented on the Revised Draft EIR
Section 3 – Responses to Comments
Appendix A
2-1
2-1
2-4
3-1
Revised Executive Summary Table
i
Section 1
Introduction
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1
PURPOSE
The Crystal Geyser Roxane Bottling Plant and Light Industrial Draft Environmental Impact
Report (Draft EIR) was prepared to disclose, analyze, and provide mitigation measures for
potentially significant environmental effects associated with the 120 acre project. Preparation of
an environmental impact report is a requirement of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) for all discretionary projects in California that have a potential to result in significant
environmental impacts.
CEQA requires that a Final EIR be prepared, certified and considered by public decision makers
prior to taking action on a project. The Final EIR provides the Lead Agency (i.e., Inyo County)
an opportunity to respond to comments received on the Draft EIR during the public review
period and to incorporate any additions or revisions to the Draft EIR necessary to clarify or
supplement information contained in the Draft document. Following the December 29, 2004
submittal of the Draft EIR, a public review period was held from December 30, 2004 to February
14, 2005. This document includes the responses to comments received during the public review
period and any other errata or changes necessitated by comments on the Draft EIR. The Draft
EIR and this responses to comments document constitute the Final EIR for the Crystal Geyser
Roxane Bottling Plant and Light Industrial Project.
1.2
SCOPE AND FORMAT
This Section 1 introduces and outlines the purpose, scope, and format of the Final EIR. Section
2 explains the public review process and lists all agencies and individuals who commented on
the Draft EIR. Section 3 consists of the actual letters of comment, reproduced in their entirety,
Meeting Notes on the Draft EIR made at the January 20, 2005 Public Input Meeting, and the
responses to each written comment received on the Draft EIR. Each response follows the
associated letter or document. Each letter and document has been numbered (e.g., Letter 1,
Letter 2). Within each letter or document, individual comments are assigned an alphanumeric
identification. For example, the first comment of Letter 1 is Comment 1A, and the second is
Comment 1B. Included within the Appendix is a Revised Summary Table of Impacts and
Mitigation Measures and Mitigation Monitoring Program.
Inyo County
Final EIR – Crystal Geyser Roxane:
1-1
April, 2005
Section 2
Overview of Comments Received
SECTION 2
OVERVIEW OF COMMENTS RECEIVED
2.1
PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT PROCEDURES
CEQA requires public disclosure in an EIR of all project environmental effects and encourages
public participation throughout the EIR process. As stated in Section15299 of the CEQA
Guidelines, the purposes of public review of environmental documents are:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
sharing expertise
disclosing agency analyses
checking for accuracy
detecting omissions
discovering public concerns
soliciting counter proposals
Section 15201 of the CEQA Guidelines states that “Public participation is an essential part of the
CEQA process.” A public review period of no less than 30 days nor longer than 60 days is
required for a Draft EIR under Section 15087(c) of the CEQA Guidelines. If a State agency is a
lead or responsible agency for the project, the public review period shall be at least 45 days. As
required under CEQA, the Draft EIR was published and circulated for review and comment by
responsible and trustee agencies and interested members of the public. The public review period
established ran from December 30, 2004 to February 14, 2005. On January 20, 2005 the Inyo
County Planning Department held a Public Input Meeting in Olancha, CA on the Draft EIR in
order to receive comments and to share information with the public. All written comments
received on the Draft EIR and oral comments received during the January 20, 2005 Public Input
Meeting are addressed herein.
2.2
INYO COUNTY’S CEQA PROCEDURES
Title 15 of the Inyo County Code includes CEQA procedures to be followed by the County in its
administration of CEQA and processing environmental documents. The following sections of
the Inyo County Code are reprinted in relevant part to describe the County’s public review
process for a Draft Environmental Impact Report.
Section 15.36.050, Notice of Completion of a Draft EIR.
As soon as the Draft EIR is completed and ready for public circulation, the
Planning Department shall file a notice of completion with the Governor's Office
of Planning and Research.
Inyo County
2-1
April, 2005
Section 15.36.060, Public Notice of a Draft EIR.
Within ten working days of accepting the Draft EIR, the Planning Department
shall publish, in a newspaper of general circulation in the County, notification that
a Draft EIR is available for public review and comment. The public notice shall
specify the review period, identify any public meetings or hearings on the project,
briefly describe the project and its significant environmental effects, and state
where the proposed EIR and all reference documents are available for review. It
must also include a statement indicating whether the project is on a listed toxics
site. The Planning Department shall inform by mail interested groups and citizens
who have requested such notification in writing of the availability of the Draft
EIR.
Section 15.36.070, Review Period for a Draft EIR.
The Planning Department shall establish a review period termination date that
shall be observed unless conditions arise during the review period to warrant an
extension of the review period. The minimum public review period will be 30
days (for projects not requiring State Clearinghouse review) or 45 days (for
projects requiring State Clearinghouse review), unless the Planning Commission
determines that it would be in the public interest to provide a longer review
period.
Section 15.36.080, Public Distribution of a Draft EIR.
The Planning Department shall distribute copies of the Draft EIR to facilitate the
public review. Copies of the Draft EIR shall be mailed to departments, agencies,
groups, and individuals that may, in the Department's judgment by reason of
expertise, jurisdiction, and interest, assist the County with its review of the Draft
EIR. In addition, at least one copy shall be mailed to the County library for public
review. Each Draft EIR shall be accompanied by a letter of transmittal indicating
the end of the review period and the departmental contact person.
Section 15.36.090, Public Hearing on a Draft EIR.
The Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing on the Draft EIR. Notice of
the public hearing shall be as follows:
1.
Notification by mail to the applicant and all individuals and organizations
who commented in writing during the public review period.
2.
Notification in a newspaper of general circulation in the area of the
proposed project.
Inyo County
2-2
April, 2005
Section 15.36.100, Comments on the Draft EIR.
Public comments must be received by the Planning Department within the
specified review period. Failure to receive written comments by the end of the
review period shall be considered a presumption of no comment. The County
shall not be obligated to respond to comments received after the termination of
the review period, unless the Planning Commission determines that the public
interest would be served by doing so.
Section 15.36.110, Evaluation of Responses to Comments.
After the review period for the Draft EIR closes, the Planning Department shall
assemble all written comments and transcripts of comments made at the public
hearing(s). These comments shall be transmitted to the consultant or public
department or agency responsible for preparing the EIR. Planning Department
staff shall determine which comments address environmental impacts and
mitigation. These comments must be responded to.
Comments addressing the following issues do not require a response, but should
be noted for the record:
1.
Comments addressing the merits of the project (as distinguished from
environmental impacts of the project).
2.
Comments beyond the scope of environmental review (such as legal
interpretations).
3.
Comments on impacts too speculative for evaluation.
15.36.120, Recirculation of Draft EIR.
If "significant new information" is added to the EIR after the close of the public
comment period but before certification, the County must provide a second public
review period and recirculate the Draft EIR for comments. New information is
considered "significant" when the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the
public of a meaningful opportunity to comment. This occurs when the new
information discloses:
1.
A new substantial environmental impact resulting from the project or from
a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented.
2.
A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact unless
mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of
insignificance.
Inyo County
2-3
April, 2005
3.
A new feasible project alternative or mitigation measure that clearly would
lessen the environmental impacts of the project, but which the project's
proponents decline to adopt.
4.
The Draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and
conclusory in nature that public comment of the draft was, in effect,
meaningless.
New information is not "significant" when it merely clarifies, amplifies, or makes
insignificant modifications to an adequate EIR. Substantial evidence must
support the County's decision not to recirculate an EIR.
15.36.130, Contents of the Final EIR.
The Final EIR shall consist of the Draft EIR, a list of persons and organizations
who made comments, comments received, and responses to comments.
2.3
AGENCIES AND INDIVIDUALS WHO COMMENTED ON THE DRAFT EIR
Letter 1:
Terry Roberts, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
Letter 2:
Anna O. Zacher
Letter 3:
Gayle J. Rosander, IGR/CEQA Coordinator, California Department of
Transportation, District 9
Letter 4:
Denyse Racine, Supervisor, Habitat Conservation Program,
Department of Fish & Game, Eastern Sierra-Inland Deserts Region
Letter 5:
Gene L. Coufal, Manager, Aqueduct Business Group, City of Los Angeles
Department of Water and Power
California
Public Input Meeting Notes, Crystal Geyser Roxane Draft EIR Meeting, January 20, 2005,
Olancha, CA.
Inyo County
2-4
April, 2005
Section 3
Responses to Comments
SECTION 3
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
This section contains the letters of comment that were received on the Draft EIR, and Public
Input Meeting Notes made at the January 20, 2005 public meeting that was held on the Draft
EIR. Following each comment letter and the Meeting Summary is a response intended to either
supplement, clarify, or amend information provided in the Draft EIR, or refer the commentor to
the appropriate place in the Draft EIR where the requested information can be found. Those
comments that are not directly related to environmental issues are noted for the record.
Inyo County
3-1
April, 2005
Letter 1
LETTER 1
Terry Roberts, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
Three separate letters on State Clearinghouse letterhead were received. The first letter, dated
February 15, 2005, specified that no State agency comments were received by the filing
deadline. Two subsequent letters were received from the State Clearinghouse (February 23,
2005 and February 24, 2005) acknowledging that comment letters were received late. The three
State Clearinghouse letters are reprinted herein and referred to collectively as Letter 1. All
comment letters received by the Clearinghouse and forwarded to the County are reprinted and
responded to below.
Inyo County
Letter 1
Response to Comments
April, 2005
Letter 2
A
B
C
D
LETTER 2
Anna O. Zacher
Letter 2, dated February 14, 2005, is responded to in the following paragraphs. A second letter
addressed to the County Planning Commission from Anna O. Zacher, dated March 9, 2005, is
also reprinted herein. Because the March 9, 2005 letter primarily addresses the project rather
than the EIR, a point by point response is not provided, and the letter is included only to ensure a
complete record of comments received prior to Final EIR publication.
Response 2A: The commentor believes the project description is confusing. The project
description contains two Phases: Phase 1, a 10 acre bottling plant and Phase II, the rezoning of
110 additional acres of land; the applicant has proposed no specific development for this portion
of the project site. For the purpose of clarification, the “Alternative Project Design” heading on
page 2-6 should read: “Reduced Project Size Alternative.” Under this alternative, the General
Plan designations and zoning classifications would be changed as requested, and would apply to
the 10 acre bottling plant (as outlined in Phase 1 of the project description), and to an additional
20 acres of land for which there are no specific plans.
Response 2B: The commentor is concerned that a Phase II is inadequately evaluated. A project
level Draft EIR has been prepared for Phase 1 of the project. A project level EIR is described in
Section 15161 of the CEQA Guidelines as one that examines the environmental impacts of a
specific development project. The applicant has proposed no specific development plans for the
portion of the project site not included in Phase 1.
The future development of the project site is designated Phase II and is examined in this Draft
EIR at a programmatic level as described in Section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines. Section
15168 does not require that a program level EIR analysis specifically list all subsequent activities
that may be within its scope. Section 1.3 of this EIR delineates the differences between project
and program EIRs, and the applicability of the terms in the context of this EIR.
Page 2-5 states that this Draft EIR presents an evaluation of the environmental impacts that could
result from the future development of an industrial park on the 100-acres of the project site not
used for the Phase I bottling plant. This includes, but is not limited to Phase II discussions of
Land Use (4-7), Traffic and Circulation (4-7), Air Quality (4-7), Noise (4-7), Light and
Glare/Aesthetics (4-7), Fire Hazards/Risk of Upset and Accident Conditions (4-7), Population
and Housing (4-8), Public Services and Facilities (4-8), Hydrology and Water Quality (4-8),
Biological Resources (4-8), and Cultural Resources (4-8).
Without a specific project description, exact statements regarding the end use of the acres to be
included in Phase II is not possible. A detailed list of uses which are allowed under M-2 zoning
is provided on page 3-3 of the Draft EIR.
An appropriate analysis of relevant land use considerations is included on pages 3-7 and 3-8 of
the Draft EIR. Aesthetic considerations for a future “industrial complex” pertaining to Phase II,
is located on page 3-42. Land use changes are described as potentially significant and
cumulative (p. 3-8); “The proposed project does not include any specific development proposals
Inyo County
Letter 2
April, 2005
for Phase II, but such development will constitute a substantial change in the foreground views
from U.S. Highway 395” (p. 3-42).
Response 2C: Commentor believes Phase II should have its own EIR and that discussion of the
preferred alternative is unclear. See Responses 2B and 2D regarding project level and program
level analysis, and tiering of EIRs. As stated in Response 2A, the ‘Reduced Project Size
Alternative” should imply that General Plan designations and zoning classifications would be
changed as requested, and would apply to the 10 acre bottling plant (as outlined in Phase 1 of the
project description), and to an additional 20 acres of land for which there are no specific plans.
Response 2D: Commentor wants separate environmental evaluation for Phase II and believes
only the 10 acre bottling plant site is adequately evaluated in the EIR. The Program level
analysis covers issues known at this time; which does not relieve the project of subsequent
environmental review using the tiering process described under CEQA Guidelines 15152(c).
Where a Lead Agency uses the tiering process in connection with an EIR for a large-scale
planning approval, such as the proposed 100-acres of M-2 zoning, the development of detailed,
site-specific information may not be feasible but can be deferred until such time as the Lead
Agency prepares a future environmental document in connection with a project of a more limited
geographic scale. This program EIR implies subsequent review processes, which will
incorporate and build upon the findings of this document.
Any actual build-out will also require discretionary approval on the part of the County; the
bottom of page 2-5 explicitly states Phase II development would be subject to a requirement that
it must be consistent with the General Plan designations and Zoning Code classifications that
apply to the site, and with the development standards for development in the M-2 Zone that are
set forth in Zoning Code, Section 18.56.050.
Inyo County
Letter 2
April, 2005
Letter 3
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
LETTER 3
Gayle J. Rosander, IGR/CEQA
Transportation, District 9
Coordinator,
California
Department
of
Response 3A: The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) thanks Inyo County for the
opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR. Comment noted.
Response 3B: The comment identifies the need for a northbound left turn lane and a southbound
right turn lane. These features were identified in the Draft EIR, although the design footprint
suggested by Caltrans is slightly longer than noted in the Draft EIR. The comment also indicates
that ¼ mile long acceleration lanes would be required by Caltrans on both northbound US 395
and southbound US 395 leaving the site. This improvement was not identified in the Draft EIR
based on the relatively limited number of trucks accessing the site under Phase I conditions. The
Draft EIR did, however, acknowledge that additional improvements to US 395 could be needed
to accommodate Phase II traffic. From telecommunication with District 9 it is understood that it
is Caltrans’ position that the need for acceleration lanes is not linked to the number of trucks
accessing the site and that any use involving any number of trucks will require this level of
improvement.
The comment noted that the length of a northbound acceleration lane would be limited by the
width of the bridge over the Los Angeles Aqueduct about 500 feet north of the proposed access.
The comment notes that most truck traffic will be oriented to the south.
The presence of the bridge north of the project access would limit the length of any northbound
acceleration lane constructed in this area. While a loaded truck may reach a speed of 40 to 45
mph at the end of a ¼ mile acceleration lane, the speed reached at the end of a 500 foot lane
would only be 30 to 35 mph.
Options to provide the required ¼ mile distance were investigated in consultation with District 9.
Theoretically, it would be necessary to widen the bridge to provide a longer lane, but the costs
associated with this improvement would be high and approval would have to be acquired from
other agencies. Thus, this option may not be feasible.
Theoretically, it may be possible to construct an access road to an alternative U.S. Highway 395
access on the north side of the bridge, but the amount of project frontage in this area is limited,
and acquisition of additional property would likely be required to place the new access at least ¼
mile north of the bridge. Thus, this option does not appear feasible.
The Draft EIR noted a long-term option associated with the eventual elimination of the
connection to U.S. Highway 395 at the project access. This option involved creation of a
frontage road to a grade separation some distance south of the site. However, the distance
involved appears to make this option infeasible in the short-term
Another option discussed with District 9 would involve prohibiting outbound left turns by trucks.
Instead, all trucks would turn right onto southbound U.S. Highway 395. Those trucks ultimately
headed north would make a u-turn at an existing median opening located to the south of the
Inyo County
Letter 3
April, 2005
project access. Improvements to provide northbound acceleration opportunities at this location
would not be constrained by the bridge.
Response 3C: The comment acknowledges Caltrans jurisdiction over the State highway and notes
that Caltrans will require the highest standard for safety in project access design. It is important
to note that the design requirements established by Caltrans for work in the state right of way are
not limited by the findings of the EIR. Thus, District 9 has ultimate authority to approve the
nature and design of project access.
The Draft EIR identifies the need for a northbound left turn lane that provides 530 feet of
deceleration. This requirement was based on the declaration requirements of Highway Design
Manual (HDM).
The Draft EIR identifies the need for a southbound right turn lane that is 200 to 300 feet long,
preceded by a bay taper of 60 to 90 feet. This distance was selected based on experience with
lanes at other locations on the state highway system but was not intended to deliver full
deceleration from 60 mph, which would require the distance noted for the northbound left turn
lane.
Response 3D: The comment letter states that Caltrans sees no need for an agreement or fees for a
desert tortoise exclusion fence. The mitigation measure was put forth by project biologists Mark
Bagley and Denise LaBerteaux as a potentially feasible means of dealing with an issue of
regional interest. As noted in the Draft EIR, there are no desert tortoise threatened on the site or
in the vicinity of the site. The region-wide implications of increases in traffic on U.S. Highway
395 over time to biological resources can only be directly dealt with by Caltrans. Because
Caltrans does not propose to participate in the proposed mitigation, Mitigation Measures #3.1011 and #3.10-12 are hereby amended to read as follows:
Mitigation Measure #3.10-11: In the event Caltrans or other multi-county entity
creates a mechanism to provide fair share funding for a desert tortoise exclusion
fence along portions of U.S. Highway 395 prior to buildout of the Crystal Geyser
Roxane project site, Crystal Geyser or its successors shall contribute a fair share,
based on trips that would be generated.
Effectiveness of Measure: Although the off-site impact to desert tortoise is
identified as potentially significant, the actual nature of the impact and the
effectiveness of this mitigation measure are indeterminable. Further, in
accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(2) the proposed mitigation
is not within the jurisdiction of Inyo County, but can or should be adopted by
another agency. Although the exclusion fence could reduce tortoise mortality by
vehicle strike, due to the lack of jurisdiction and indeterminable nature of the
impact, this impact remains potentially significant and unavoidable. Phase I
impacts to other reptiles are not expected to be significant. These species should
benefit from mitigation measures proposed for Mohave ground squirrels. No
mitigation is necessary for other reptiles.
Inyo County
Letter 3
April, 2005
Implementation/Monitoring: Compliance with this measure shall be a condition of
approval of the Conditional Use Permit. Monitoring will be the responsibility of
the Inyo County Planning Department.
Mitigation Measure #3.10-12: In the event Caltrans or other multi-county entity
creates a mechanism to provide fair share funding for a desert tortoise exclusion
fence along portions of U.S. Highway 395 prior to buildout of the Crystal Geyser
Roxane project site, Crystal Geyser or its successors shall contribute a fair share,
based on trips that would be generated.
Effectiveness of Measure: Although the off-site impact to desert tortoise is
identified as potentially significant, the actual nature of the impact and the
effectiveness of this mitigation measure are indeterminable. Further, in
accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(2) the proposed mitigation
is not within the jurisdiction of Inyo County, but can or should be adopted by
another agency. Although the exclusion fence could reduce tortoise mortality by
vehicle strike, due to the lack of jurisdiction and indeterminable nature of the
impact, this impact remains potentially significant and unavoidable. Phase I
impacts to other reptiles are not expected to be significant. These species should
benefit from mitigation measures proposed for Mohave ground squirrels. No
mitigation is necessary for other reptiles.
Implementation/Monitoring: Compliance with this measure shall be a condition of
approval of the Conditional Use Permit. Monitoring will be the responsibility of
the Inyo County Planning Department.
Response 3E: The comment letter asks that the reference to U.S. Highway 395 in the last
sentence of the last paragraph of Mitigation Measure #3.10-5 be replaced with “in project
vicinity.” The last paragraph of Mitigation Measure #3.10-5 is hereby modified to read as
follows:
To mitigate for indirect impacts associated with a potential increase in the
common raven population near the site, the lids on all trash receptacles at the
bottling plant shall fit tightly and be kept closed. Waste shall be removed from
the site as often as necessary to reduce the potential to overflow receptacles. In
addition, Crystal Geyser Roxane shall sponsor a litter collection program in the
project vicinity to reduce trash and to further decrease the probability of attracting
common ravens.
Response 3F: The comment letter provides a contact for encroachment permit information.
Comment noted.
Response 3G: The comment letter notes that a Caltrans shoulder-widening job is scheduled for
2006, which should take place prior to Phase I of the project. Comment noted.
Inyo County
Letter 3
April, 2005
Response 3H: The comment notes that the Olancha/Cartago 4-lane widening project is now
scheduled for 2018 and discusses issues with maintaining site access in the future as that
improvement project is completed. The Draft EIR acknowledged that access to the site would be
affected by long term plans to widen US 395. Development of alternative access at that time and
the need for additional assessment was acknowledged (pages 3-22 and 3-23).
Response 3I: Caltrans asks that relevant project information continue to be forwarded. Comment
noted.
Inyo County
Letter 3
April, 2005
Letter 4
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
I cont.
J
K
L
M
N
N cont.
O
P
Q
R
S
S cont.
S cont.
T
U
V
W
LETTER 4
Denyse Racine, Supervisor, Habitat Conservation Program,
Department of Fish & Game, Eastern Sierra-Inland Deserts Region
California
Response 4A: The commentor reports that the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG)
has reviewed the Draft EIR. Comment noted.
Response 4B: The commentor describes CDFG’s statutory and other responsibilities. Comment
noted.
Response 4C: The comment letter notes that the list of “Agency Actions” and Permits does not
include the need for an Incidental take Permit for Mohave ground squirrel and a Streambed
Alteration Agreement. Although it cannot be known with certainty that all of the listed permits
will be required, Section 1.5 of the Draft EIR is hereby revised to add to Table 1-1 an “Incidental
Take Permit” pursuant to Section 2081 of the Fish and Game Code and a “Streambed Alteration
Agreement” pursuant to Section 1603 of the Fish and Game Code.
Response 4D: The commentor is concerned that the impact analysis for groundwater may not be
adequate given the three limitations noted in Mitigation Measure #3.9B-1. However, this
mitigation measure is designed to address these limitations by establishing a five-year minimum
groundwater monitoring program and performance standards, which require specific steps to be
taken to address any long-term decline in groundwater levels attributable to Phase I or Phase II
of the project. In addition, projects proposed under Phase II will require additional
environmental review since this aspect of the project was analyzed at a program level. Also, see
Responses to Comments 2B and 2D.
Response 4E: The commentor asks whether the cumulative impact analysis of groundwater levels
could not be used to perform a more detailed analysis of potential impacts on private wells
adjacent to the project site. The cumulative analysis is focused on the groundwater budget—
overall pumping and recharge—for the Owens Lake Subbasin. Such an analysis does not take
into account the role complex subterranean geology plays in how the operation of one well can
affect the operation of another nearby well. Additional environmental review, including further
analysis of groundwater impacts, will be required for any projects developed as part of Phase II.
Also see Responses to Comments 2B and 2D.
Response 4F: The comment letter asks for the reason a five-year minimum time period for
groundwater monitoring was chosen for Mitigation Measure #3.9B-1 when the model of impacts
to groundwater used in the Draft EIR extends over a 10-year period. To address this
inconsistency, the monitoring period for Mitigation Measure #3.9B-1 is hereby modified to be
consistent with the time frame for the groundwater analysis:
Mitigation Measure #3.9B-1: Because of the uncertainty of the Theis Equation in
predicting groundwater drawdown impacts to adjacent wells, and the fact that the
applicant did not utilize the potential maximum groundwater pumping rate in
completing the well interference analysis, or factor in the combined effect of
multiple wells associated with development of the Industrial Park, the applicant
Inyo County
Letter 4
April, 2005
shall develop and implement a groundwater monitoring program for an initial 10
year minimum period, with additional monitoring required for 5 years following
the drilling and installation of any new water supply wells. The groundwater
monitoring program shall include the drilling and installation of at least 3 small
diameter observation wells within ½ mile to the north, south, and east of the CG-2
production well. The observation wells shall be monitored at least quarterly for
groundwater levels. If possible, the wells shall be integrated into the groundwater
monitoring network and database maintained cooperatively by LADWP and the
Inyo County Water Department.
Criteria for determining if an adjacent water supply is adversely impacted shall
use the procedures outlined in the Green Book for the Long-term Groundwater
Management Plan for the Owens Valley and Inyo County. This includes the use
of any available groundwater models and aquifer tests, and the establishment of
new monitoring wells drilled to the same depth as adjacent private wells to
monitor groundwater depths. If the monitoring wells show a consistent long term
decline in groundwater levels that cannot be explained by climatic fluctuations, or
similar trends in other wells not thought to be potentially impacted by the CG-2
well, then the applicant shall be responsible for deepening the affected wells,
resetting and replacing pumps at lower levels, or drilling and completing new
replacement wells for any adversely impacted wells.
Response 4G: The commentor requests that Mitigation Measure #3.9B-3 be revised to include
more specific information about who will be responsible for determining the exact location of the
wells, how the locations will be determined, who will be responsible for installing and
maintaining the wells and what number of wells will be necessary to monitor the potential
impacts. The commentor also states that to determine the baseline, monitoring should take place
one to five years prior to use of the Crystal Geyser production well. See Response to Comment
4H.
Response 4H: The commentor states that Mitigation Measure #3.9B-3 does not specify how the
“baseline” flow for Olancha Spring would be established, who would be responsible for
determining the baseline, and what time frame would be required for determining the baseline.
To respond to these concerns and those summarized in Response to Comment 4G, Mitigation
Measure #3.9B-3 is hereby amended as follows:
Mitigation Measure #3.9B-3: Because of the biological significance of the spring,
and the uncertainty over potential impacts of groundwater withdrawal from the
CG-2 production well, as well as other potential future onsite wells, on the spring,
a program of groundwater and spring monitoring shall be conducted as a
condition of project approval.
At least two shallow observation or monitoring wells (20 feet deep) shall be
established in the groundwater body supplying the spring and both sides of the
fault to determine if project site wells will impact the spring. The well locations
Inyo County
Letter 4
April, 2005
shall be selected based on the direction of groundwater flows feeding the spring.
A baseline of spring flow shall also be established after a one-year period of
monitoring. The CG-2 well shall not be used, and other wells shall not be
developed, for a minimum of one year after implementation of the Olancha
Springs monitoring program to ensure that the recorded baseline flow for Olancha
Spring reflects pre-project conditions. Monitoring of the shallow wells at
Olancha Spring shall be continued quarterly for a minimum of 5 years after
installation of all wells on the project site, with an annual report filed with the
Inyo County Planning Department and Inyo County Water Department on the
results of the monitoring, along with any conclusions and recommendations. If
possible, the monitoring information shall be integrated into the spring monitoring
database maintained by the Inyo County Water Department.
The monitoring well information shall be interpreted in conjunction with an
analysis of rainfall patterns and trends in other shallow zone wells and spring
observations being conducted by LADWP and Inyo County throughout Owens
Valley, to verify that changes in spring flow and water levels in the perched water
table are a result of the project, and not due to climatic fluctuations, fault
movement, or other causes. Inyo County’s Green Book shall be used as the basis
for procedures for establishing the monitoring program and interpreting results,
and developing follow up mitigations. If the data analysis shows that project site
wells are having an effect on the spring, then the applicant shall develop a
mitigation plan to offset the impacts. Suitable mitigations for minor impacts on
flow could include enhancing, restoring, and protecting other natural springs and
seeps located on the west side of the Owens Valley.
In order to recognize a change in the wetland vegetation or wildlife populations
that might be caused by the project, baseline information on the current conditions
at the spring, prior to project pumping, shall be documented. The baseline
biological document shall include low level aerial photography of the spring to
document the extent of the wetland vegetation; a survey to determine the plant
species composition and structure at the spring; and a survey to obtain a
population estimate for the Owens Valley vole and to determine if Wong’s
springsnail occurs. If the long term monitoring indicates biological impacts are
occurring due to pumping, then the applicant will be required to reduce pumping
to a level that does not create such impacts, or provide other appropriate
compensatory mitigations measures to the satisfaction of the CDFG and Inyo
County, including enhancing and restoring other springs in southwest Owens
Valley.
Effectiveness of Measure: This mitigation measure will determine if the proposed
CG-2 production well, combined with other wells associated with the build-out of
the industrial park, is adversely affecting the nearby spring. If the spring is
affected, then a plan for remediation and/or restoration will be developed.
Although this will reduce the impact to the spring, it will not reduce it to a less
than significant level, because it cannot now be proven that the spring will not be
Inyo County
Letter 4
April, 2005
adversely affected.
unavoidable.
This will impact will remain potentially significant and
Implementation/Monitoring: The applicant will be required to develop and
implement a detailed groundwater monitoring program. This monitoring plan
shall be developed under the supervision of a certified hydrogeologist in
consultation with a qualified biologist knowledgeable in the area of springdependent biological resources (such as an aquatic ecologist). The consulting
hydrogeologist shall be responsible for selecting the appropriate locations of the
shallow monitoring wells to ensure that any impacts to the spring that could be
due to operation of the Crystal Geyser production well can be detected. The
hydrogeologist shall also be responsible for ensuring that the wells are properly
installed, that monitoring occurs on a quarterly basis, and for establishing the
baseline flow for Olancha Spring. The biologist shall be responsible for
establishing the baseline for any biological resources dependent upon the Olancha
Spring using aerial photography and field observations of spring-dependent
vegetation. The biologist shall also be responsible for detecting and recording
any significant changes from the baseline, including but not limited to a 20% dieback in vegetative cover of obligate wetland species and consulting with the
hydrogeologist to determine the extent to which the change is due to a loss of
spring flow caused by project site pumping.
Monitoring plan approval and technical review of the monitoring program will be
overseen by the Inyo County Water Department, which will provide support to
the Inyo County Planning Department. Monitoring will be conducted quarterly
for a minimum of 5 years after installation of all wells, with an annual report filed
with the Planning Department and Water Department on the results of the
monitoring, along with any conclusions and recommendations. The Water
Department will be entitled to recover fees for service based on actual staff
review time of the monitoring information submitted by the applicant. The
monitoring information will be considered public information and can be used by
Inyo County as part of their management planning activities. Enforcement of the
monitoring and spring restoration mitigation requirements will be the
responsibility of the Inyo County Planning Department, working in cooperation
with the Inyo County Water Department. Any successors to the applicant shall be
required to participate in the monitoring program, which shall be made a
condition of any future entitlements or other land use approvals granted on the
120 acre site.
Response 4I: The commentor states that it is unclear whether future project proponents will be
required to participate in the monitoring program. Modifications have been made to Mitigation
Measure #3.9B-3 to address this concern. See Response to Comment 4H.
Response 4J: The commentor seeks clarification on the length of the monitoring program. The
monitoring program would begin one year prior to any additional pumping on the site and
Inyo County
Letter 4
April, 2005
continue for five years after installation on the last onsite well. See clarifications made under
Response to Comments 4f and 4H.
Response 4K: The comment letter states that Mitigation Measure #3.9B-3 does not define the
“effect,” biological impact, or the extent of impacts that would trigger mitigation. Mitigation
Measure #3.9B-3 has been modified (see Response to Comment 4H) to define a significant effect
as including but not limited to a 20% die-back in vegetative cover of obligate wetland species.
If, after analysis of hydrological data, the effect is shown to be a result of use of the Crystal
Geyser production well, mitigation of this effect would be triggered.
Response 4L: The commentor points out the need for clarifications in the drafting of Mitigation
Measure #3.9B-3 related to future wells. See Response to Comment 4H. Since no specific
projects have been proposed under Phase II, it is not clear whether these uses would draw water
from CG-2 or from wells that have yet to be developed. To the extent that detailed project
information was unavailable, Phase II was analyzed at a programmatic level. Usage of
groundwater by future projects proposed for the project site will require subsequent
environmental review. Also see Responses to Comments 2B and 2D.
Response 4M: The comment letter asserts that Mitigation Measure #3.9B-3 is not detailed
enough to constitute a “realistic performance standard that will ensure mitigation of
environmental effects,” and defers mitigation. The County disagrees. Mitigation Measure
#3.9B-3, as revised under Response to Comment 4H describes the monitoring program in detail,
who is responsible for carrying it out, and provides a measurable standards for environmental
effects that require mitigation. The measure also describes the parties responsible for ensuring
that the mitigation occurs. The performance based mitigation that is described is acceptable
under CEQA and does not defer an action that can or should be taken now. A mitigation plan
can only be prepared after real world groundwater monitoring is performed, as acknowledged by
the commentor in previous comments.
Response 4N: The commentor questions the feasibility of spring restoration or enhancement
projects as suggested by Mitigation #3.9B-3. Specifically, Mitigation Measure #3.9B-3 states
that mitigation “…could include enhancing, restoring and protecting other springs…” The
reference is included to simply provide examples of avenues that could be explored in the
mitigation plan. The details suggested by the commentor would be included in any mitigation
plan that would be prepared, if an affect were to be documented.
Response 4O: The comment letter notes that in conjunction with Impact #3.10-5, an Incidental
Take Permit from CDFG will be required for development of the proposed beverage bottling
plant and for any subsequent future development projects on the site. Permits in and of
themselves are not mitigation. Comment noted for the record.
Response 4P: The comment letter notes that the Lead Agency, not CDFG, is responsible for ongoing monitoring associated with Mitigation Measures #3.10-5 and #3.10-6. Comment noted.
As stated in the second paragraph of the comment letter from CDFG: “The Department has
jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants,
Inyo County
Letter 4
April, 2005
and habitats necessary for biologically sustainable populations of those species (Fish and Game
Code Section 702).” It is therefore assumed the CDFG will have an interest in and will monitor
activities on the site as a part of its statutory responsibilities. The reference to this effect in the
EIR is provided in the spirit of accuracy and full disclosure.
Response 4Q: The comment letter asks whether Caltrans has been consulted regarding whether it
will enter into an agreement for funding a desert tortoise exclusion fence, and suggests that
mitigation is being deferred. See Response to Comment 3D. The issue is multi-jurisdictional
and cannot be resolved by Crystal Geyser Roxane or the County of Inyo acting alone. Fair share
funding arrangements have been accepted as adequate mitigation under similar circumstances.
In this instance, because there is no appropriate entity to take the lead in this matter, any
potential impact will remain significant and unavoidable.
Response 4R: The comment letter notes that the Lead Agency, not CDFG, is responsible for ongoing monitoring associated with Mitigation Measures #3.10-11 and #3.10-12. See Responses to
Comments 3D and 4P.
Response 4S: The comment letter notes that the Draft EIR states that all ground disturbing
activities shall be conducted during the non-breeding season for birds. It also points out that the
two mitigation measures for protecting birds from ground-disturbing activities list two different
over-lapping time periods as the non-breeding seasons. The commentor requests a clarification
on what time period would be considered the non-breeding season. Additionally, the commentor
finds the proposed burrowing owl mitigation in these measures inadequate. To address these
concerns, Mitigation Measures #3.10-15 and #3.10-16 are hereby amended as follows:
Mitigation Measure #3.10-15: Phase I ground-disturbing activities shall be
conducted during the non-breeding season for passerine birds, approximately mid
July to mid February. In addition a qualified biologist/ornithologist shall conduct
a pre-construction survey for burrowing owls on site within 30 days of the onset
of ground disturbing activities. Surveys shall be based on the accepted protocols
as detailed in the California Department of Fish and Game Staff Report on
Burrowing Owl Mitigation.
(http://www.dfg.ca.gov/hcpb/species/stds_gdl/bird_sg/burowlmit.pdf).
In the event the survey discovers burrowing owls on the site, ground disturbing
construction activities shall be additionally limited to the period September 1
through January 31, the non breeding season for burrowing owls.
If burrowing owls are found on the project site, the following measures from the
CDFG Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines shall be
implemented.
1. All owls associated with occupied burrows that will be directly impacted
(temporarily or permanently) by the project shall be relocated and the
following measures shall be implemented to avoid take of owls:
Inyo County
Letter 4
April, 2005
a. Occupied burrows shall not be disturbed during the nesting season of
February 1 through August 31, unless a qualified biologist can verify
through non-Invasive methods that either the owls have not begun egg
laying and incubation or that juveniles from the occupied burrows are
foraging Independently and are capable of Independent flight.
b. Owls must be relocated by a qualified biologist from any occupied
burrows that will be impacted by project activities. Suitable habitat must
be available adjacent to or near the disturbance site or artificial burrows
will need to be provided nearby. Once the biologist has confirmed that the
owls have left the burrow, burrows should be excavated using hand tools
and refilled to prevent reoccupation.
c. All relocation shall be approved by the Department. The permitted
biologist shall monitor the relocated owls a minimum of three days per
week for a minimum of three weeks. A report summarizing the results of
the relocation and monitoring shall be submitted to the Department within
30 days following completion of the relocation and monitoring of the
owls.
2. A Burrowing Owl Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall be submitted to the
Department for review and approval prior to relocation of owls. The
Burrowing Owl Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall describe proposed
relocation and monitoring plans. The plan shall Include the number and
location of occupied burrow sites and details on adjacent or nearby suitable
habitat available to owls for relocation. If no suitable habitat is available
nearby for relocation, details regarding the creation of artificial burrows
(numbers, location, and type of burrows) shall also be included in the plan.
The Plan shall also describe proposed off-site areas to preserve to compensate
for Impacts to burrowing owls/occupied burrows at the project site as required
under Condition 1.
3. As compensation for the direct loss of burrowing owl nesting and foraging
habitat, the project proponent shall mitigate by acquiring and permanently
protecting known burrowing owl nesting and foraging habitat (The acquisition
of burrowing owl habitat can be linked with other habitat acquisition that may
be required for this project) at the following ratio:
a. Replacement of occupied habitat with occupied habitat at 1.5 times 6.5
acres per pair or single bird;
b. Replacement of occupied habitat with habitat contiguous with occupied
habitat at 2 times 8.5 acres per pair or single bird; and/or
c. Replacement of occupied habitat with suitable unoccupied habitat at 3
times 6.5 acres per pair or single bird.
Inyo County
Letter 4
April, 2005
4. The project proponent shall establish a non-wasting endowment account for
the long term management of the preservation site for burrowing owls. The
site shall be managed for the benefit of burrowing owls. The preservation site,
site management, and endowment shall be approved by the Department.
Mitigation Measure #3.10-16: Phase II ground-disturbing activities shall be
conducted during the non-breeding season for passerine birds, approximately mid
July to mid February. In addition a qualified biologist/ornithologist shall conduct
a pre-construction survey for burrowing owls on site within 30 days of the onset
of ground disturbing activities. Surveys shall be based on the accepted protocols
as detailed in the California Department of Fish and Game Staff Report on
(http://www.dfg.ca.gov/hcpb/species/stds_gdl/bird_sg/burowlmit.pdf)
In the event the survey discovers burrowing owls on the site, ground disturbing
construction activities shall be additionally limited to the period September 1
through January 31, the non breeding season for burrowing owls.
If burrowing owls are found on the project site, the following measures from the
CDFG Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines shall be
implemented.
1. All owls associated with occupied burrows that will be directly impacted
(temporarily or permanently) by the project shall be relocated and the
following measures shall be implemented to avoid take of owls:
a. Occupied burrows shall not be disturbed during the nesting season of
February 1 through August 31, unless a qualified biologist can verify
through non-Invasive methods that either the owls have not begun egg
laying and incubation or that juveniles from the occupied burrows are
foraging Independently and are capable of Independent flight.
b. Owls must be relocated by a qualified biologist from any occupied
burrows that will be impacted by project activities. Suitable habitat must
be available adjacent to or near the disturbance site or artificial burrows
will need to be provided nearby. Once the biologist has confirmed that the
owls have left the burrow, burrows should be excavated using hand tools
and refilled to prevent reoccupation.
c. All relocation shall be approved by the Department. The permitted
biologist shall monitor the relocated owls a minimum of three days per
week for a minimum of three weeks. A report summarizing the results of
the relocation and monitoring shall be submitted to the Department within
30 days following completion of the relocation and monitoring of the
owls.
Inyo County
Letter 4
April, 2005
2. A Burrowing Owl Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall be submitted to the
Department for review and approval prior to relocation of owls. The
Burrowing Owl Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall describe proposed
relocation and monitoring plans. The plan shall Include the number and
location of occupied burrow sites and details on adjacent or nearby suitable
habitat available to owls for relocation. If no suitable habitat is available
nearby for relocation, details regarding the creation of artificial burrows
(numbers, location, and type of burrows) shall also be included in the plan.
The Plan shall also describe proposed off-site areas to preserve to compensate
for Impacts to burrowing owls/occupied burrows at the project site as required
under Condition 1.
3. As compensation for the direct loss of burrowing owl nesting and foraging
habitat, the project proponent shall mitigate by acquiring and permanently
protecting known burrowing owl nesting and foraging habitat (The acquisition
of burrowing owl habitat can be linked with other habitat acquisition that may
be required for this project) at the following ratio:
a. Replacement of occupied habitat with occupied habitat at 1.5 times 6.5
acres per pair or single bird;
b. Replacement of occupied habitat with habitat contiguous with occupied
habitat at 2 times 8.5 acres per pair or single bird; and/or
c. Replacement of occupied habitat with suitable unoccupied habitat at 3
times 6.5 acres per pair or single bird.
4. The project proponent shall establish a non-wasting endowment account for
the long term management of the preservation site for burrowing owls. The
site shall be managed for the benefit of burrowing owls. The preservation site,
site management, and endowment shall be approved by the Department.
Response 4T: The comment letter notes that the Lead Agency, not CDFG, is responsible for ongoing monitoring associated with Mitigation Measures #3.10-15 and #3.10-16. Comment noted.
See Response to Comment 4P.
Response 4U: The commentor asks whether the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has been
consulted regarding whether it will allow a livestock exclusion fence around Olancha Spring to
reduce the impacts of human visitation that may increase as result of familiarity of the spring and
its associated wildlife by employees of the proposed bottling plant. BLM has recently advised
the County that it will not allow the proposed fence to be built. Therefore, Mitigation Measure
#3.10-19 is hereby amended as follows:
Mitigation Measure #3.10-19: Crystal Geyser Roxane and any other future
developers on the project site shall establish an education program to inform
Inyo County
Letter 4
April, 2005
employees of the sensitivity of Olancha Spring and to discourage them from using
the area for recreation. Crystal Geyser Roxane shall also post signs on the
boundary between the project site and the spring reminding employees that the
spring is a protected resource. (Also see Mitigation Measures #3.5-2A and #3.52B regarding control of lighting)
Effectiveness of the Measure: The education program and signage will discourage
employee visitation to the spring and therefore reduce impacts to a less than
significant level.
Implementation/Monitoring: Crystal Geyser Roxane and its successors shall be
responsible for developing and implementing the educational program and putting
up the signage. The Inyo County Planning Department shall review the program
and signage as a condition of certifying occupancy of the bottling plant or other
future facilities.
Response 4V: The comment letter notes that the Lead Agency, not CDFG, is responsible for ongoing monitoring associated with Mitigation Measures #3.10-19. Comment noted. See
Response to Comment 4P.
Response 4W: The commentor states the opinion that the Mitigation Measure #3.10-20 (same as
Mitigation Measure #3.9B-3) is vague and unenforceable and is concerned with Inyo County’s
willingness to allow potentially significant unavoidable impacts to occur at Olancha Springs.
The County does not understand how the commentor reached the conclusion that the County is
willing to allow potentially significant impacts to occur at Olancha Springs. No decisions have
been made on the merits of the project. Further an EIR was required and prepared for the very
purpose of addressing the issues of concern to CDFG. See Response to Comment 4H.
Inyo County
Letter 4
April, 2005
Letter 5
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
LETTER 5
Gene L. Coufal, Manager, Aqueduct Business Group, City of Los Angeles
Department of Water and Power
Response 5A: The commentor discusses the Initial Study checklist appearing on the County’s
website. Comment noted. The checklist is not the EIR and was prepared to assist in early
discussion of environmental effects from the proposed bottling plant. The commentor is referred
to the Draft EIR dated December 2004. Draft EIR Chapter Two, Project Description (page 2-2)
clearly states that the project includes both a 10-acre bottling plant and proposed changes in
land-use designations and zoning on the entire 120-acre project site to allow industrial uses.
Discussion under “Phase II” (page 2-5) notes that the applicant has proposed no specific
development for the 110-acre portion of the site not reserved for the bottling plant. See
Response to Comment 2B.
Response 5B: Again the commentor discusses the Initial Study checklist. The checklist is not the
EIR and was prepared to assist in early discussion of environmental effects from the proposed
bottling plant. The commentor is referred to Section 15063 of the CEQA Guidelines for
background on the Initial Study process. The commentor also compares information in the
Initial Study with information in the EIR. An Initial Study is prepared based on limited
information. An EIR is often prepared to provide information that was unavailable to the County
at the time of Initial Study preparation. Once an EIR is prepared, the content of the Initial Study
is superseded where better and more current information is provided in the EIR.
Response 5C: The commentor questions why Impact #3.9B-2 is not significant and addressed by
the same mitigation measure as Impact #3.9B-3 when both impact statements cover effects on
vegetation from groundwater pumping. The commentor is referencing the Executive Summary
rather than the body of the EIR where the background and analysis are found. The commentor is
referred to pages 3-68 through 3-84 of the Draft EIR. Impact #3.9B-2 concerns the potential
impact of a lowering of the water table on vegetation in the vicinity of the project site,
concluding that this vegetation is not groundwater dependent. Impact #3.9B-3 addresses the
potential effect of a lowering of the water table on Olancha Spring, which supports waterdependent vegetation.
Response 5D: The commentor requests that monitoring wells be in place one year before the
production well operates. See Response to Comment 4H.
Response 5E: Commentor requests that Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP)
be supplied with future data from the project site. Comment noted. The comment does not raise
a significant environmental concern and no response is necessary.
Response 5F: The comment notes that LADWP does not own or operate any well supply at the
Owens Lake Project, as is stated in the Draft EIR on pages 3-70, 3-80, and 3-83. Comment
noted.
Response 5G: The commentor requests a setback of 60 feet from the LADWP-owned Los
Angeles Aqueduct, which bisects the project site, to prevent structures from being built next to
Inyo County
Letter 5
April, 2005
the aqueduct. Mitigation Measure #3.9A-3B includes a provision that “no improvements shall
be constructed within 50 feet of the aqueduct easement” in order to protect surface water quality,
including water in the aqueduct, from degradation. The commentor has not provided an
explanation of how an additional 10 feet of setback will provide significantly greater protection
to the aqueduct than the current proposed mitigation measure.
Response 5H: The comment letter notes an error on page 33 of the Initial Study (Appendix A of
the Draft EIR), under item a): “Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed”? Both the “no
impact” and “potentially significant impact” boxes have been check. Only the “potentially
significant impact” box should be checked. See Response to Comment 5B. Water supply for the
proposed project is discussed on pages 3-70 and 3-71 of the Draft EIR
Response 5I: The commentor asserts that the project poses significant air, water and hazard
issues for the Los Angeles Aqueduct; however, no evidence or description of these concerns is
provided. The Draft EIR addresses impacts to air quality from PM10 emissions from
construction under Impact #3.3-1. Vehicular emissions from long-term site operations are
addressed by Impact # 3.3-2. Impacts to surface water quality, including to water carried by the
aqueduct, are discussed under Impact #3.9A-3. Risk of upset related to the storage or use of
hazardous materials at the wastewater treatment plant is addressed by Impact #3.6-2. Hazardous
material spill containment is discussed under Impact #3.6-4. The comment does not raise an
additional environmental impact that was not addressed in the Draft EIR.
Response 5J: The commentor suggests that nearby industrial development will contaminate the
aqueduct and also suggests that there is no development currently located along the aqueduct.
Although highly unlikely that development does not occur elsewhere along the aqueduct, the
Draft EIR proposes a setback for development adjacent to the aqueduct in order to protect the
water conveyance facility (Mitigation Measure 3.9A-3B). See Responses to Comments 5G and
5I.
Response 5K: The commentor is concerned that uses listed in the M-2 Zone pose a threat to the
aqueduct. See Responses to Comments 2B, 5G, 5I and 5J. Also see Mitigation Measures #3.9A1, #3.9A-2, #3.9-A-3A, and #3.9A-3B on pages 3-64 through 3-68 of the Draft EIR.
Response 5L: The commentor suggests that the EIR does not address impacts to adjacent
properties. See Responses to Comments 2B, 5G and 5I. The Draft EIR fully addresses impacts
to adjacent properties, including the Los Angeles Aqueduct. For example, as has been described
under Response to Comment 5G, a building setback is specifically provided for the aqueduct
under proposed Mitigation Measure #3.9A-3B.
Response 5M: Commentor suggests that there is an attempt to circumvent CEQA because the
analysis for Phase II is programmatic in nature. See Responses to Comments 2B and 2D.
Response 5N: Commentor points out that there is a change in terminology for names of
alternatives between Section 2.4 and Chapter 4 of the Draft EIR. Comment noted. See
Inyo County
Letter 5
April, 2005
Response to Comment 2A. The commentor apparently concurs with the EIR that the “Reduced
Project Size Alternative” is the environmentally superior alternative.
Response 5O: Commentor is concerned about that uses that may be allowed in Phase II and
potential air quality impacts. Commentor requests that an EIR be prepared for Phase II. See
Responses to Comments 2B, 2D and 5I.
Response 5P: The comment letter claims the Draft EIR does not discuss upset or release of
hazardous materials into the aqueduct. Impact #3.6-4 and Mitigation Measure #3.6-4 address
control of upset conditions or release of hazardous materials from the project site, including any
impacts to the aqueduct. The comment does not raise an additional environmental concern that
was not addressed in the Draft EIR.
Response 5Q: The comment letter states the discussion under “Cumulative Impacts” (page 5-4)
should also discuss cumulative impacts to the Los Angeles Aqueduct. Potential cumulative
impacts, for air quality, water quality, and hazards that might affect the adjacent aqueduct, were
considered in Sections 3.3, 3.6, 3.9A and 3.9B of the Draft EIR respectively. None of the
impacts identified in these sections were considered “cumulatively considerable” based on the
incremental effect of the project. As described on page 5-6 of the Draft EIR, the area of
cumulative effect is generally the southern Owens Valley. The County is unaware of other
projects in the southern Owens Valley that would have the types of cumulative effects described
by the commentor.
Response 5R: The commentor states that the Draft EIR should propose permanent improvements
to prevent any damage or spills into the aqueduct. Mitigation Measure #3.6-4 addresses drainage
and spill control, including trench drains with storm water controls, oil/waste separators, and
spill containment. Mitigation Measure #3.9A-2 requires the applicant to construct on-site
detention or retention basins sufficient to result in no net increase in post-development
stormwater flow. The on-site storm drain systems must be designed to capture all run-off from
paved surfaces and building roofs. These will be permanent improvements.
Response 5S: Commentor believes EIR is inadequate and requests a thorough study of Phase II
impacts. Comment noted. See Responses to Comments 2B and 2D.
Inyo County
Letter 5
April, 2005
Public Input Meeting Notes
Planning Department
168 North Edwards Street
Post Office Drawer L
Independence, California 93526
Phone: (760) 878-0263
(760) 872-2706
FAX:
(760) 872-2712
E-Mail: inyoplanning@qnet.com
January 21, 2005
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT : Crystal Geyser Roxane, Public Input Meeting Notes, Draft EIR Meeting
Held January 20, 2005, Olancha School, 6:30-8:00 p.m.: Comments
Received
The following are questions and concerns expressed by the citizens attending this
meeting.
x
Concerned about light pollution, especially in the parking areas.
x
What will be the result of the highway (U.S. Highway 395) 4-lane project, and/or a
complete re-alignment of the highway to the east or west of the project site?
x
Concerned about traffic hazards, especially turns, and specifically left hand turns
by slow-moving trucks.
x
Concern about re-designating and re-zoning the entire 120-acre site; opens up the
balance of 110-acres to many different kinds of light industrial uses which will not
be subject to further County (especially Planning Commission) review and
permitting; what is the purpose, or proposed use, of the remaining land? Could
have a significant impact on the local area.
A
B
C
D
x
Asked if applicant (Crystal Geyser) can help with community issues, such as the
Olancha school.
E
x
Expressed concern that monies spent for mitigation for endangered species would
be better spent doing studies; do not use the money to buy up more private
property in Inyo County for habitat.
F
x
Asked to what extent the project will impact the Desert Tortoise.
G
x
Concern regarding potential drawdown of neighboring water wells.
H
x
Concerned about impacts to the nearby spring.
-1-
I
x
Concerned about potential flooding and associated impacts; concern about
impacts to the LADWP Aqueduct.
x
Asked if the impacts on increased population in the local area had been
considered; has Crystal Geyser offered amenities/services to the workers such as
a cafeteria, medical facilities, etc.
x
Asked if the water well will be on a separate electric meter; the flow meter
(transducer) needs to be recorded at an offsite location; asked how often water
use and water quality would be measured/reported.
x
Wants County to limit trucking and all operations to the 2-shift time period,
including not allowing truck traffic after 10:00 p.m.
/jl
Cc:
Leslie Anne Klusmire, AICP, ASLA
Director, Inyo County Planning Department
Randy Keller, Assistant County Counsel
Inyo County County Counsel
Richard Weklytch
Crystal Geyser, Calistoga, CA
Rick Moore
Crystal Geyser, Weed, CA
Tom Platz, Vice President
Triad Holmes Associates, Inc.
Ron Chegwidden, Acting Director
Inyo County Public Works/Roads Department
Arden Wallum, Interim Director
Inyo County Water Department
Don McGhie, Real Estate
Los Angeles Department of Water & Power
Gayle Rosander, IGR/CEQA Coordinator
Cal Trans, District 9, Bishop
Adrienne Disbrow, Biologist
California Department of Fish & Game
-2-
J
K
L
M
Public Input Meeting Notes, Crystal Geyser Roxane Draft EIR Meeting, January 20, 2005, Olancha,
CA.
Response A: The commentor is concerned about light pollution from the proposed project.
Adverse impacts to nighttime views from new sources of light are covered under Impact #3.5-2
(Draft EIR pages 3-43 through 3-44).
Response B: The commentor asked about the status of the 4-lane project and/or a realignment of
U.S. Highway 395 east or west of the project. Long-term development of the highway, including
in the vicinity of the project site, is discussed on page 3-10 of the Draft EIR.
Response C: The commentor expressed concern about traffic hazards, especially turns, and
specifically left hand turns by slow-moving trucks. Project access design features, including turn
lanes, are discussed on page 3-10 of the Draft EIR. Also see Response to Comment 3B.
Response D: The commentor is concerned about rezoning the entire 120-acre site to different
kinds of light industrial uses that will not be subject to further County review. Responses to
Comments 2B and 2D.
Response E: The commentor asked if the applicant can help with community issues, such as the
Olancha School. Impacts to school facilities in Olancha are discussed under Impact #3.8-4.
Response F: The commentor expressed concern that monies spent for mitigation for endangered
species would be better spent doing studies rather than using the money to buy up more private
property in Inyo County for habitat. Comment noted. The comment does not raise an additional
environmental impact that was not addressed in the Draft EIR.
Response G: The commentor asked to what extent the project will impact the desert tortoise.
Impacts to desert tortoises are discussed in Impact #3.10-11 and Impact #3.10-12 (Draft EIR
pages 3-152 and 3-153). Also see Response to Comment 3D.
Response H: The commentor expresses concerns about potential drawdown of neighboring wells.
This potential is discussed under Impact #3.9B-1 (Draft EIR page 3-75).
Response I: The commentor is concerned about impacts to the nearby spring. Potential impacts
to Olancha Spring are discussed under Impact #3.9B-3 (Draft EIR page 3-77).
Response J: The commentor is concerned about potential flooding and associated impacts as well
as impacts to the Los Angeles Aqueduct. Drainage and flooding are discussed in Section 3.9A of
the Draft EIR. See Responses to Comments 5G, 5I, 5P, and 5Q.
Response K: The commentor is concerned about impacts from increased population in the local
area. Population impacts are discussed in Section 3.7 of the Draft EIR. The commentor also is
concerned about the provision by Crystal Geyser of amenities/services to workers. Comment
Inyo County
April, 2005
noted. The comment does not raise an additional environmental impact that was not addressed in
the Draft EIR.
Response L: The commentor asks about use of a separate electric meter, whether the flow meter
will be recorded at an offsite location. Specific technical questions regarding well operation are
better directed to the applicant and/or the Inyo County Department of Environmental Health
Services. The commentor also asks about how often water use and water quality will be
measured and reported. Inyo County requirements for well reporting and water quality testing
are discussed on page 3-73 of the Draft EIR.
Response M: The commentor wants trucking and all operations limited to the 2-shift time period,
including not allowing truck traffic after 10 p.m. Hours of operation for the proposed bottling
plant are discussed on page 3-9 of the Draft EIR.
Inyo County
April, 2005
Appendix A
Table S-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
No.
Impact
3.1 Land Use
3.1-1
The proposed General Plan
change may conflict with
General Plan policies
adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect.
3.1-2
The proposed land use
designation and zoning
changes would allow
development of light
industrial uses on land
currently designated as
natural resources/open space,
which could potentially
cause physical impacts to the
environment.
3.2 Traffic and Circulation
3.2-1
Phase I will generate
additional traffic in the
project area.
3.2-2
The proposed project will
generate additional traffic in
the project area with the
buildout of Phase II.
Level of Significance
Before
After
Mitigation
Mitigation
Mitigation
No.
Less than
Significant
Potentially
Significant &
Cumulative
Significant,
Cumulative
&
Unavoidable
Less than
Significant
Potentially
Significant
Inyo County
Draft EIR – Crystal Geyser Roxane: Beverage Bottling Plant
Less than
Significant
ES-1
3.2-2
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Monitoring
None required.
None required.
None required.
None required.
None required.
None required.
Phase II development shall be
limited by Inyo County to
ensure that the LOS “C”
threshold is not exceeded until
The Inyo County
Board of
Supervisors shall
place such a
April, 2005
Impact
No.
Impact
Before
After
Mitigation
Mitigation
Mitigation
No.
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Monitoring
such time as U.S. Highway
395 is widened to four lanes
and alternative access is
developed. Development
percentages and resulting
Levels of Service are based on
maintaining LOS “C” under
Existing Plus Project
conditions, described as
follows:
restriction on
Phase II by
Ordinance. The
Inyo County
Planning
Department will be
responsible for
monitoring
thresholds, as
Phase II
applications are
submitted for
consideration.
•
Inyo County
ES-2
Threshold Based on U.S.
Highway 395 Capacity. As
shown in Table 3.2-9,
because background traffic
volumes vary, the
allowable percentage also
varies. During the typical
midweek condition, 55%
to 65% of Phase II could
be allowed to develop
before the LOS “C”
threshold was exceeded on
U.S. Highway 395 south
of the project site.
However, because Friday
traffic volumes are higher,
only 22% of Phase II
could develop before the
LOS “C” threshold would
April, 2005
Impact
No.
Impact
Before
After
Mitigation
Mitigation
Mitigation
No.
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Monitoring
be exceeded on a Friday
afternoon.
•
Inyo County
ES-3
Threshold Based on U.S.
Highway 395/Access Level
of Service. As shown on
Table 3.2-10, better Levels
of Service will exist at this
access than on U.S.
Highway 395. During
midweek, the traffic
associated with the 55%
Phase II development
level that will provide
LOS “B” at the
intersection will reach the
LOS “D” threshold on
U.S. Highway 395.
Approximately 75% of
Phase II could be
developed before
approaching LOS “D”
during midweek at that
intersection. However,
because Friday traffic
volumes are higher, only
55% of Phase II could be
developed before
approaching the LOS “D”
threshold at the
April, 2005
Impact
No.
Impact
Before
After
Mitigation
Mitigation
Mitigation
No.
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Monitoring
intersection. The Phase II
levels that result in LOS
“D” on U.S. Highway 395
(i.e., 22% and 29%,
respectively) would still
provide LOS “B” at the
intersection.
3.2-3
Buildout of the proposed
project assumed for year
2023 would result in
unsatisfactory Levels of
Service at the assumed
access intersection.
Potentially
Significant
&
Cumulative
Inyo County
Less than
Significant
ES-4
3.2-3
Phase II development after
widening of U.S. Highway
395 to four lanes and
development of alternative
access shall be limited to a
maximum development level
of 90%, and/or the
development level at which
Level of Service “C” is not
exceeded.
The Inyo County
Board of
Supervisors shall
place such a
restriction on
Phase II by
Ordinance. The
Inyo County
Planning
Department will be
responsible for
monitoring
thresholds, as
Phase II
applications are
submitted for
consideration.
April, 2005
Impact
No.
Impact
3.3 Air Quality
3.3-1
result in an increase in PM10
emissions from construction
equipment and grading
activities, resulting in a
potential violation of
mandated air quality
standards and a conflict with
the Owens Valley PM10
Demonstration of Attainment
SIP.
Before
After
Mitigation
Mitigation
Potentially
Significant
Less than
Significant
Mitigation
No.
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Monitoring
3.3-1
During construction the
following measures to control
fugitive dust and emissions of
particulates shall be
employed:
On-site contractors
will be responsible
for
implementation.
The Inyo County
Public Works
(Building and
Safety)
Department will be
responsible for
construction
inspections. The
GBUAPCD will
be responsible for
monitoring.
• Provision of equipment
and staffing for watering
of all exposed or disturbed
soil surfaces or use of an
appropriate dust palliative
or suppressant;
• Watering or treating of all
disturbed but inactive
portions of the site with an
appropriate dust
suppressant;
• Covering or wetting down
of materials transported by
truck to control dust;
Inyo County
ES-5
•
Daily clean-up of mud and
dirt carried onto paved
streets from the site;
•
Suspension of dustproducing activities during
April, 2005
Impact
No.
Impact
Before
After
Mitigation
Mitigation
Mitigation
No.
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Monitoring
periods of sustained high
winds (gusts exceeding 25
mph) when dust control
measures are unable to
avoid visible dust plumes.
•
3.3-2
generate additional air
emissions from vehicular
emissions.
Significant
Inyo County
Less than
Significant
ES-6
3.3-2
Maintenance of all
construction equipment in
proper working order.
Conditions of approval for the
project shall establish a daily
trip generation cap for the
entire project of 4,957 daily
trips. If daily trip generation
exceeds this level, the
conditions of approval shall
require that the applicant
submit and present to the
Planning Director for approval
a Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) plan that
establishes a carpool matching
program, vanpool commute
program, and/or operational
strategies (e.g., staggered
work hours/days, flexible
scheduling, and on-site
services such as
cafeteria/lunch room,
The Inyo County
Board of
Supervisors shall
place such a
restriction on the
project by
Ordinance. The
Inyo County
Planning
Department will be
responsible for
monitoring the
cap, as
applications for
development are
submitted for
consideration. The
Planning Director
will be responsible
for reviewing and
April, 2005
Impact
No.
Impact
Before
After
Mitigation
Mitigation
Mitigation
No.
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Monitoring
breakroom, gym, showers,
etc).
approving the
TDM plan.
3.3-3
The project will increase
traffic volumes and
congestion levels, changing
carbon monoxide
concentrations at land uses
near roadways providing
access to the project site.
Less than
Significant
None required.
None required.
3.3-4
The project will generate
new diesel truck trips,
increasing exposure to diesel
particulate, a Toxic Air
Contaminant.
Less than
Significant
None required.
None required.
Contractor(s) shall implement
the following measures during
Phase II construction, if noisesensitive uses exist within 500
feet:
The Inyo County
Public Works
(Building and
Safety)
Department will
verify that noiserelated contract
specifications are
in place before
issuing demolition,
grading, or
building permits
for any phase of
3.4 Noise
3.4-1
Noise generated by onsite
construction activities. In
general, noise related to
construction activities is
considered a temporary,
short-term impact. However,
project buildout is to occur in
phases over many years.
Potentially
Significant
Inyo County
Less than
Significant
3.4-1
•
ES-7
All construction vehicles
and equipment (fixed or
mobile, including
generators) shall be
equipped with properly
operating and maintained
mufflers;
April, 2005
Impact
No.
Impact
Before
After
Mitigation
Mitigation
Mitigation
No.
Mitigation Measure
•
Any generators or air
compressors proposed to
operate on a 24-hour basis
and within 500 feet of
residential units or
sensitive receptors (such
as schools) shall be placed
within an enclosure to
reduce nuisance noise;
• All noise-generating
construction activities
shall be limited to
weekdays, Monday
through Friday, between
the hours of 7:00 a.m. and
5:00 p.m. Construction
activities shall not be
performed on weekends or
federal holidays.
Implementation
Monitoring
the project. The
Inyo County Board
of Supervisors
shall place such
restrictions on
Phase II by
Ordinance. The
Public Works
(Building and
Safety) and
Sheriff’s
Departments will
respond to any
noise complaints
received and adjust
measures as
appropriate.
• Implement, as directed by
Inyo County, appropriate
additional noise mitigation
measures, including, but
not limited to, changing
the location of stationary
construction equipment,
shutting off idling
equipment, rescheduling
Inyo County
ES-8
April, 2005
Impact
No.
Impact
Before
After
Mitigation
Mitigation
Mitigation
No.
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Monitoring
construction activity,
notifying adjacent
residents in advance of
construction work,
installing acoustic barriers
around stationary
construction noise sources,
and routing construction
trucks away from noisesensitive areas.
3.4-2
Operation of the proposed
project may generate
additional noise above levels
specified in Inyo County
2001 General Plan Policy
NOI-1.1 that could affect
neighboring properties.
Potentially
Significant
Inyo County
Less than
Significant
ES-9
3.4-2
Noise levels produced by
stationary and mobile sources
on the project site shall not
exceed 70 dB Ldn at the
property line.
Applicants for the
bottling plant and
other light
industrial
development
during Phase II of
the project shall
submit accoustical
studies prepared
by a qualified
accoustical
engineer
demonstrating to
the Inyo County
Planning
Department that
operational noise
will not exceed the
standard in this
April, 2005
Impact
No.
Impact
Before
After
Mitigation
Mitigation
Mitigation
No.
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Monitoring
measure prior to
issuance of
building permits.
The Inyo County
Board of
Supervisors shall
place such a
restriction on
Phase II by
Ordinance.
Periodic
monitoring will be
conducted by the
Planning
Department.
3.5 Light and Glare/Aesthetics
3.5-1
Substantial alteration of the
views of the site from U.S.
Highway 395 would occur
by introduction of
development features on a
site currently dominated by
desert scrub and open space.
Potentially
Significant
Inyo County
Significant
and
Unavoidable
ES-10
3.5-1
The County shall require
developers within both Phase I
and Phase II to submit fullcolor architectural renderings,
including signage, of all
proposed facilities. Photo
simulations showing the
"before" project site and the
"after" project site shall also
be provided along with a
sample board of materials, the
proposed color palette, and a
landscaping plan. The photo
The Inyo County
Planning
Department will
require applicants
to submit
renderings, sample
boards, and
landscape plans
prior to approval
of conditional use
permits or building
permits (if no
conditional use
April, 2005
Impact
No.
Impact
Before
After
Mitigation
Mitigation
Mitigation
No.
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Monitoring
simulations shall be from at
least two angles, and from
various distances (e.g., 500,
1,000, and 2,000 feet) from
both the north and from the
south along U.S. Highway
395. The simulations shall
show height, location, and
appearance of the proposed
facilities as viewed from U.S.
Highway 395. The
renderings, sample boards,
landscaping plans, and photo
simulations shall be submitted
for consideration and approval
by the Planning Commission
prior to approval of building
permits or other pending
applications, including
Conditional Use Permit No.
2001-19. These renderings
and samples shall conform to
the following design criteria
and be required for all phases
of projects:
permit is required).
Compliance with
approved plans
and design
guidelines will be
monitored by the
Planning
Department and
Public Works
(Building and
Safety)
Department prior
to issuance of
building permits
and during
construction. The
Inyo County Board
of Supervisors
shall place such
restrictions on
Phase II by
Ordinance.
•
Inyo County
ES-11
Buildings shall be
constructed with nonreflective surfaces,
including roofs and
April, 2005
Impact
No.
Impact
Before
After
Mitigation
Mitigation
Mitigation
No.
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Monitoring
windows, and the windows
shall be designed so they
face away from the
highway.
Inyo County
ES-12
•
Buildings shall be painted
or otherwise covered in
soft 'desert-sand' colors
that match the local tones
and hues.
•
Buildings, wastewater
ponds, outside equipment
and utilities such as
propane tanks, water
tanks, solid waste
containers, etc., shall be
landscaped or screened
with materials such as
sand-colored concrete
block to reduce visibility
from U.S. Highway 395 or
nearby businesses.
•
Signs shall be externally
illuminated. Signage shall
not be painted or otherwise
affixed to buildings.
April, 2005
Impact
No.
Impact
Before
After
Mitigation
Mitigation
Inyo County
ES-13
Mitigation
No.
Mitigation Measure
•
Landscaping and screening
shall incorporate native
and common ornamental
vegetation, such as
cottonwood and poplar
trees, blackbush scrub,
sagebrush, rabbit brush,
cactus, and native
wildflowers, grasses, and
forbs.
•
All driveways shall be
paved in a light-colored
material, and landscaped
in native vegetation and
vegetation common to the
area (e.g., cottonwood and
poplar trees, various native
and ornamental shrubs,
and native flowers and
grasses) to the greatest
extent possible.
•
Use of local soils, rocks,
and other materials that
give the area a 'natural'
look shall be included in
the design. Cactus and
other fire-resistant
vegetation shall be
Implementation
Monitoring
April, 2005
Impact
No.
Impact
Before
After
Mitigation
Mitigation
Mitigation
No.
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Monitoring
strategically placed on the
project site to minimize
fire hazard while
maintaining visual
aesthetics.
The applicants for the
Conditional Use Permit for the
bottling plant (Phase I) shall
submit design guidelines for
the entire project site (Phase I
and Phase II), subject to
review and approval by the
Planning Director, prior to
approval of Conditional Use
Permit No. 2001-19.
3.5-2
Projects will create new
sources of light and glare,
which could adversely affect
nighttime views in the area.
Potentially
Significant &
Cumulative
Inyo County
Less than
Significant
ES-14
3.5-2A
Lighting shall be installed
with the lowest illumination
feasible, using soft
yellow/orange/pink lighting
elements, low pressure
sodium elements, or other
lighting as approved by the
Inyo County Planning
Director. Baffles, shades, and
hoods shall be used to direct
all lighting downward, such
that light does not escape in
an upward direction, and is
Prior to issuance
of building
permits, the Public
Works (Building
and Safety)
Department will
review proposed
lighting fixtures to
ensure compliance
with this measure.
The Inyo County
Board of
Supervisors shall
April, 2005
Impact
No.
Impact
Before
After
Mitigation
Mitigation
Potentially
Significant &
Cumulative
Inyo County
Less than
Significant
ES-15
Mitigation
No.
3.5-2B
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Monitoring
not reflected onto any off-site
buildings or roadways. All
light standards and fixtures
within parking lots shall be of
a cutoff design.
place such a
restriction on
Phase II by
Ordinance.
As a condition of approval of
Conditional Use Permit No.
2001-19, the applicant shall
submit a lighting plan for
Phase I showing compliance
with Mitigation Measure #3.52A, and specifying the
location and intensity of
proposed exterior or outdoor
lighting features. All signage
shall be externally
illuminated. The lighting plan
shall be subject to review and
approval by the Planning
Director and Sheriff’s
Department to ensure that
minimum safety standards are
maintained while minimizing
off-site lighting impacts.
Future applications for
development permits for
Phase II shall include lighting
plans that conform to
Mitigation Measure #3.5-2A,
The Inyo County
Board of
Supervisors shall
place such
restrictions on
Phase II by
Ordinance. The
Inyo County
Planning
Department and
Sheriff’s
Department will be
responsible for
review and
approval of the
lighting plan prior
to approval of
conditional use
permits, building
permits, or other
entitlements.
April, 2005
Impact
No.
Impact
Before
After
Mitigation
Mitigation
Mitigation
No.
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Monitoring
and shall be subject to review
and approval by the Planning
Director and Sheriff’s
Department.
3.6 Fire Hazards/Risk of Upset and Accident Conditions
Potentially
3.6-1
Increased risk of wildland
Significant
fires due to truck traffic and
employee vehicles entering
and exiting the project site,
and other activities on the
project site.
Inyo County
Less than
Significant
ES-16
3.6-1A
Vegetation surrounding all
structures and along all
roadways shall be cleared or
otherwise maintained pursuant
to the standards required by
CDF and the Olancha
Community Services District.
Landscaping on the project
site shall consist of xeric and
low combustion species
approved by the California
Department of Forestry and
Fire Protection. Trucks on the
project site shall be required
to remain on paved surfaces.
All development proposals for
the project site for Phase II
shall adhere to the brush
clearing requirements and
defensible space required by
CDF and the Olancha CSD.
CDF will verify
compliance with
brush clearance
requirements prior
to issuance of any
building permit.
Landscaping plans
shall be approved
by CDF. Ongoing
inspections will be
conducted by
CDF.
April, 2005
Impact
No.
Impact
Before
After
Mitigation
Mitigation
Potentially
Less than
Significant
Significant
Potentially
Significant
Inyo County
Less than
Significant
ES-17
Mitigation
No.
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Monitoring
3.6-1B
Buildings constructed on the
project site shall comply with
applicable Fire Safe
Regulations adopted and
enforced by CDF and the
Uniform Fire Code that relate
to entry/exit, maintenance of
defensible space measures,
signing and building
numbering, building spacing,
water storage, fire flow, fire
hydrants, and other
requirements designed to
promote fire protection. All
buildings shall be equipped
with automatic fire sprinklers
with an uninterruptible power
supply.
The Olancha CSD
will review and
approve all site
and building plans
prior to the
issuance of
building permits
for Phases I and II
to assure that they
meet fire and
emergency
response needs of
the District.
3.6-1C
As a part of the site design, all
facilities proposed for the
project site shall contain all
required fire hazard
prevention, fire fighting, and
personal safety equipment, as
required by the Uniform Fire
Code. Prevention and safety
equipment includes fire
extinguishers, smoke alarms,
and related equipment.
CDF will be
responsible for
periodic
inspections to
ensure compliance
with CDF Fire
Safe Regulations
and the Uniform
Fire Code.
April, 2005
Impact
No.
Impact
Before
After
Mitigation
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
3.6-2
Risk of upset related to the
storage or use of hazardous
materials at the wastewater
treatment plant.
3.6-3
Potential exposure of
workers, visitors and
travelers to truck accidents
involving a spill of chemicals
or hazardous substances.
Less than
Significant
3.6-4
Potential upset and accident
conditions involving
transport and use of
hazardous materials on the
project site.
Potentially
Significant
Less than
Significant
Mitigation
No.
3.6-4
Mitigation Measure
None required.
None required.
None required.
None required.
The following drainage and
spill control and containment
features shall be incorporated
into Phase I and Phase II
project designs:
The Public Works
(Building and
Safety)
Department will
ensure that plans
include the
required design
features prior to
issuance of
building permits,
and will monitor
construction to
ensure compliance
with approved
plans.
•
•
•
Inyo County
ES-18
Implementation
Monitoring
Trench drains with storm
water controls
Oil/wastewater separators
Spill containment
April, 2005
Impact
No.
Impact
3.7 Population and Housing
3.7-1
Development of the project
could have a cumulative
impact related to substantial
population growth in the
project area.
3.7-2
Inconsistency of the
proposed project with
Housing Element Policy H4.2 regarding mobilehomes.
3.8 Public Services and Facilities
3.8-1
The project would increase
the need for additional fire
protection and emergency
response services.
Before
After
Mitigation
Mitigation
Mitigation
No.
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Monitoring
Less than
Significant
None required.
None required.
Less than
Significant
None required.
None required.
The applicant shall construct
and operate an onsite fire
station prior to the
commencement of Phase II.
The facility shall have the
capability to provide fire
protection and paramedic
services to the bottling plant
and any light industrial
development that occurs in
Phase II. At least three
employees trained and
certified in industrial
firefighting operations shall be
available during all hours that
industrial operations are
The Inyo County
Planning
Department will be
responsible for
ensuring that the
fire station is
constructed and
provisions are
made for staffing
prior to issuance of
any building
permits for Phase
II activity.
Inspections and
monitoring of
station staffing,
Potentially
Significant
Inyo County
Less than
Significant
ES-19
3.8-1
April, 2005
Impact
No.
Impact
Before
After
Mitigation
Mitigation
Mitigation
No.
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Monitoring
occurring to staff the fire
station on an as needed basis.
training, and
operations shall be
provided by the
Olancha/Cartago
Fire Department
Safety Division.
3.8-2
The project will generate
solid waste and increase the
demand for landfill capacity.
Less than
Significant
None required.
None required.
3.8-3
generate additional
population and school
enrollment, and impact local
school facilities.
Less than
Significant
None required.
None required.
3.8-4
generate additional
population and increase use
of existing parks and other
recreational facilities and
demand for new parks and
recreational facilities.
Less than
Significant
None required.
None required.
The applicant shall prepare
and submit a drainage plan as
part of the first development
As a condition of
approval of the
Conditional Use
3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
3.9A Drainage and Flooding/Water Quality
3.9A-1 The project could expose
persons and property to
flooding.
Potentially
Significant
Inyo County
Less than
Significant
ES-20
3.9A-1
April, 2005
Impact
No.
Impact
Before
After
Mitigation
Mitigation
Inyo County
ES-21
Mitigation
No.
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Monitoring
application, which includes
appropriate flood protection,
storm water
detention/retention facilities
for both Phases I and II. The
drainage plan shall preserve
the four existing drainage
washes crossing the property,
with 50-foot setbacks on each
side of the wash, demonstrate
that proposed structures are
protected from localized
flooding, and that the site
facilities have been designed
to withstand storm flow
during a 100-year design
storm event. The drainage
plan shall identify both preproject and post-project flows
and shall indicate specific
measures to protect structures
from flood damage.
Permit, plans for
stormwater
detention,
retention and
conveyance
facilities with
supporting
calculations shall
be submitted to the
Inyo County
Public Works
(Building and
Safety)
Department for
review and
approval. The
Public Works
(Building and
Safety)
Department will be
responsible for
inspection and
approval of
constructed
facilities. Longterm maintenance
of drainage
facilities will be
the responsibility
of the property
April, 2005
Impact
No.
Impact
Before
After
Mitigation
Mitigation
Mitigation
No.
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Monitoring
owner, or lessee,
with monitoring by
the Public Works
(Building and
Safety)
Department.
3.9A-2
The project could result in
additional runoff to
downstream properties as a
result of project
development.
Potentially
Significant
Inyo County
Less than
Significant
ES-22
3.9A-2
The applicant shall construct
on-site detention or retention
basins sufficient to result in no
net increase in postdevelopment stormwater flow.
Such basins shall not encroach
upon or affect the conveying
capacity of the four existing
drainage washes crossing the
property and shall be
described in the Drainage Plan
required by Mitigation
Measure #3.9A-1.
As a condition of
approval of the
Conditional Use
Permit, plans for
stormwater
detention,
retention and
conveyance
facilities with
supporting
calculations shall
be submitted to the
Inyo County
Public Works
(Building and
Safety)
Department for
review and
approval. The
Public Works
(Building and
Safety)
Department will be
April, 2005
Impact
No.
Impact
Before
After
Mitigation
Mitigation
Mitigation
No.
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Monitoring
responsible for
inspection and
approval of
constructed
facilities. Longterm maintenance
of drainage
facilities will be
the responsibility
of the property
owner, or lessee,
with monitoring by
the Public Works
(Building and
Safety)
Department.
3.9A-3
Surface water quality could
be adversely affected during
construction activities and
site occupancy.
Potentially
Significant
Inyo County
Less than
Significant
ES-23
3.9A-3A
To protect surface water
quality from degradation, the
applicant and all subsequent
developers on the site shall
comply with and obtain
approvals from the Lahontan
Regional Water Quality
Control Board for storm water
discharges for construction
and industrial related
activities, including a Storm
Water Pollution Prevention
Plan, National Pollutant
The applicant must
present evidence
of approval of a
General
Construction
Permit to the Inyo
County Public
Works (Building
and Safety)
Department prior
to issuance of a
grading permit.
Evidence of
April, 2005
Impact
No.
Impact
Before
After
Mitigation
Mitigation
Inyo County
ES-24
Mitigation
No.
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Monitoring
Discharge Elimination System
(NDPES) Construction
Stormwater Permit, and
General Industrial Stormwater
Discharge permit (if required).
receipt of a
General Industrial
Permit, if required,
must be provided
before a certificate
of occupancy is
granted. The Inyo
County Public
Works (Building
and Safety)
Department and
the RWQCB will
inspect and
monitor facilities
during
construction and
following major
storm events. The
SWPPP must be
submitted to the
Lahontan RWQCB
for review at least
30 days prior to
start of
construction, and
the permit should
be onsite before
construction is
started. The
RWQCB will
April, 2005
Impact
No.
Impact
Before
After
Mitigation
Mitigation
Mitigation
No.
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Monitoring
conduct
inspections during
construction to
assure compliance
with the NPDES
permit.
Potentially
Significant
Inyo County
Less than
Significant
ES-25
3.9A-3B
Drainage flows shall not
affect LADWP’s aqueduct
easement. Effluent disposal
areas, retention basins, and/or
improvements shall not be
located within the easement
unless written permission is
received from LADWP
following submittal of
detailed drainage and grading
plans. LADWP may require
installation of curbs or asphalt
berms to prevent soil erosion
within the easement. No
improvements shall be
constructed within 50 feet of
the aqueduct easement. Any
site runoff allowed to enter
LADWP property or
easements shall also comply
with LADWP Guidelines for
onsite oil/water separators.
The Inyo County
Planning
Department will be
responsible for
consultation with
LADWP to assure
that the project is
in compliance with
this measure.
Inspections and
monitoring will be
conducted by
LADWP.
April, 2005
Impact
No.
Impact
3.9B Groundwater
3.9B-1 There is a small potential for
well interference impacts
from the Crystal Geyser
Roxane production well on
adjacent private wells,
lowering water levels in
these wells. In some cases, if
wells are shallow and well
pumps are set near the water
table, the well could go dry.
Before
After
Mitigation
Mitigation
Potentially
Significant
Inyo County
Less than
Significant
ES-26
Mitigation
No.
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Monitoring
3.9B-1
Because of the uncertainty of
the Theis Equation in
predicting groundwater
drawdown impacts to adjacent
wells, and the fact that the
applicant did not utilize the
potential maximum
groundwater pumping rate in
completing the well
interference analysis, or factor
in the combined effect of
multiple wells associated with
development of the Industrial
Park, the applicant shall
develop and implement a
groundwater monitoring
program for an initial 10 year
minimum period, with
additional monitoring required
for 5 years following the
drilling and installation of any
new water supply wells. The
program shall include the
drilling and installation of at
least 3 small diameter
observation wells within ½
mile to the north, south, and
east of the CG-2 production
The applicant will
be required to
develop and
implement a
detailed
groundwater
monitoring
program. The
program will
consist of
submitting
information on
actual groundwater
usage at the
project site, and
the installation and
monitoring of
observation wells,
(minimum of 3,
approx. 100 foot
deep wells) and
measuring depth to
groundwater in
any private well
within 2 miles of
the project site,
upon request by
the property
owner.
April, 2005
Impact
No.
Impact
Before
After
Mitigation
Mitigation
Mitigation
No.
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Monitoring
Monitoring plan
approval and
technical review of
the monitoring
program will be
overseen by the
Inyo County Water
Department, which
will provide
support to the Inyo
County Planning
Criteria for determining if an
Department.
adjacent water supply is
Monitoring will be
adversely impacted shall use
conducted
the procedures outlined in the quarterly for a
Green Book for the Long-term minimum of 5
Groundwater Management
years (for each
Plan for the Owens Valley and newly installed
Inyo County. This includes
well), with an
the use of any available
annual report filed
groundwater models and
with the Planning
aquifer tests, and the
Department and
establishment of new
Water Department
monitoring wells drilled to the on the results of
same depth as adjacent private the monitoring,
wells to monitor groundwater along with any
depths. If the monitoring
conclusions and
wells show a consistent long
recommendations.
term decline in groundwater
The Water
levels that cannot be explained Department will be
well. The observation wells
shall be monitored at least
quarterly for groundwater
levels. If possible, the wells
shall be integrated into the
network and database
maintained cooperatively by
LADWP and the Inyo County
Water Department.
Inyo County
ES-27
April, 2005
Impact
No.
Impact
Before
After
Mitigation
Mitigation
Mitigation
No.
Mitigation Measure
by climatic fluctuations, or
similar trends in other wells
not thought to be potentially
impacted by the CG-2 well,
then the applicant shall be
responsible for deepening the
affected wells, resetting and
replacing pumps at lower
levels, or drilling and
completing new replacement
wells for any adversely
impacted wells.
Inyo County
ES-28
Implementation
Monitoring
entitled to recover
fees for service
based on actual
staff review time
of the monitoring
information
submitted by the
applicant. The
monitoring
information will be
considered public
information and
can used by Inyo
County as part of
their management
planning activities.
Enforcement of the
well replacement
mitigation
requirements will
be the
responsibility of
the Inyo County
Planning
Department,
working in
cooperation with
the Inyo County
Environmental
Health Services
April, 2005
Impact
No.
Impact
Before
After
Mitigation
Mitigation
Mitigation
No.
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Monitoring
Department,
Public Works
Department, and
the Inyo County
Water Department.
3.9B-2
Pumping of groundwater for
the project could lower the
water table in the vicinity of
the project site and
potentially impact the native
plant communities of this
area.
Less than
Significant
3.9B-3
Pumping of groundwater for
the proposed project could
lower the water table in the
vicinity of the project site
and potentially impact
Olancha Spring and its
associated water dependent
vegetation.
Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Significant &
Unavoidable
3.9B-3
Because of the biological
significance of the spring, and
the uncertainty over potential
impacts of groundwater
withdrawal from the CG-2
production well, as well as
other potential future onsite
wells, on the spring, a
program of groundwater and
spring monitoring shall be
conducted as a condition of
project approval.
At least two shallow
observation or monitoring
wells (20 feet deep) shall be
Inyo County
ES-29
The applicant will
be required to
develop and
implement a
detailed
groundwater
monitoring
program. This
monitoring plan
shall be developed
under the
supervision of a
certified
hydrogeologist in
consultation with
a qualified
April, 2005
Impact
No.
Impact
Before
After
Mitigation
Mitigation
Inyo County
ES-30
Mitigation
No.
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Monitoring
established in the groundwater
body supplying the spring and
both sides of the fault to
determine if project site wells
will impact the spring. The
well locations shall be
selected based on the direction
of groundwater flows feeding
the spring. A baseline of
spring flow shall also be
established after a one-year
period of monitoring. The
CG-2 well shall not be used,
and other wells shall not be
developed, for a minimum of
one year after implementation
of the Olancha Springs
monitoring program to ensure
that the recorded baseline
flow for Olancha Spring
reflects pre-project conditions.
Monitoring of the shallow
wells at Olancha Spring shall
be continued quarterly for a
minimum of 5 years after
installation of all wells on the
project site, with an annual
report filed with the Inyo
County Planning Department
and Inyo County Water
biologist
knowledgeable in
the area of springdependent
biological
resources (such as
an aquatic
ecologist). The
consulting
hydrogeologist
shall be
responsible for
selecting the
appropriate
locations of the
shallow
monitoring wells
to ensure that any
impacts to the
spring that could
be due to
operation of the
Crystal Geyser
production well
can be detected.
The
hydrogeologist
shall also be
responsible for
ensuring that the
April, 2005
Impact
No.
Impact
Before
After
Mitigation
Mitigation
Mitigation
No.
Mitigation Measure
Department on the results of
the monitoring, along with
any conclusions and
recommendations. If
possible, the monitoring
information shall be
integrated into the spring
monitoring database
maintained by the Inyo
County Water Department.
The monitoring well
information shall be
interpreted in conjunction
with an analysis of rainfall
patterns and trends in other
shallow zone wells and spring
observations being conducted
by LADWP and Inyo County
throughout Owens Valley, to
verify that changes in spring
flow and water levels in the
perched water table are a
result of the project, and not
due to climatic fluctuations,
fault movement, or other
causes. Inyo County’s Green
Book shall be used as the
basis for procedures for
establishing the monitoring
Inyo County
ES-31
Implementation
Monitoring
wells are properly
installed, that
monitoring occurs
on a quarterly
basis, and for
establishing the
baseline flow for
Olancha Spring.
The biologist shall
be responsible for
establishing the
baseline for any
biological
resources
dependent upon
the Olancha
Spring using
aerial
photography and
field observations
of springdependent
vegetation. The
biologist shall also
be responsible for
detecting and
recording any
significant
changes from the
baseline,
April, 2005
Impact
No.
Impact
Before
After
Mitigation
Mitigation
Mitigation
No.
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Monitoring
program and interpreting
results, and developing follow
up mitigations. If the data
analysis shows that project
site wells are having an effect
on the spring, then the
applicant shall develop a
mitigation plan to offset the
impacts. Suitable mitigations
for minor impacts on flow
could include enhancing,
restoring, and protecting other
natural springs and seeps
located on the west side of the
Owens Valley.
including but not
limited to a 20%
die-back in
vegetative cover
of obligate
wetland species
and consulting
with the
hydrogeologist to
determine the
extent to which
the change is due
to a loss of spring
flow caused by
project site
pumping.
In order to recognize a change
in the wetland vegetation or
wildlife populations that
might be caused by the
project, baseline information
on the current conditions at
the spring, prior to project
pumping, shall be
documented. The baseline
biological document shall
include low level aerial
photography of the spring to
document the extent of the
wetland vegetation; a survey
Inyo County
ES-32
Monitoring plan
approval and
technical review
of the monitoring
program will be
overseen by the
Inyo County
Water
Department,
which will
provide support to
the Inyo County
Planning
April, 2005
Impact
No.
Impact
Before
After
Mitigation
Mitigation
Inyo County
ES-33
Mitigation
No.
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Monitoring
to determine the plant species
composition and structure at
the spring; and a survey to
obtain a population estimate
for the Owens Valley vole and
to determine if Wong’s
springsnail occurs. If the long
term monitoring indicates
biological impacts are
occurring due to pumping,
then the applicant will be
required to reduce pumping to
a level that does not create
such impacts, or provide other
appropriate compensatory
mitigations measures to the
satisfaction of the CDFG and
Inyo County, including
enhancing and restoring other
springs in southwest Owens
Valley.
Department.
Monitoring will
be conducted
quarterly for a
minimum of 5
years after
installation of all
wells, with an
annual report filed
with the Planning
Department and
Water Department
on the results of
the monitoring,
along with any
conclusions and
recommendations.
The Water
Department will
be entitled to
recover fees for
service based on
actual staff review
time of the
monitoring
information
submitted by the
applicant. The
monitoring
information will
April, 2005
Impact
No.
Impact
Before
After
Mitigation
Mitigation
Mitigation
No.
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Monitoring
be considered
public information
and can be used
by Inyo County as
part of their
management
planning
activities.
Enforcement of
the monitoring
and spring
restoration
mitigation
requirements will
be the
responsibility of
the Inyo County
Planning
Department,
working in
cooperation with
the Inyo County
Water
Department. Any
successors to the
applicant shall be
required to
participate in the
monitoring
program, which
Inyo County
ES-34
April, 2005
Impact
No.
Impact
Before
After
Mitigation
Mitigation
Mitigation
No.
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Monitoring
shall be made a
condition of any
future
entitlements or
other land use
approvals granted
on the 120 acre
site.
3.9B-4
Cumulative groundwater
impacts.
3.9C Wastewater Treatment and Disposal
3.9C-1 The disposal of Phase I
treated wastewater through
percolation ponds has the
potential to degrade
groundwater quality.
Less than
Significant
Potentially
Significant
Inyo County
Less than
Significant
ES-35
3.9C-1
None required.
None required.
The wastewater treatment
facilities for Phase I shall be
designed and constructed to
meet the requirements of the
Lahontan Regional Water
Quality Control Board
(RWQCB). Project applicants
shall obtain Waste Discharge
Requirements (WDRs) for
wastewater treatment facilities
from the Lahontan RWQCB.
Monitoring wells shall be
installed as required by the
RWQCB, and monitoring of
groundwater for nitratenitrogen shall be performed to
determine if there is a
Applicants must
obtain WDRs from
the California
Regional Water
Quality Control
Board, Lahontan
Region, and Inyo
County
Environmental
Health Services
Department related
to construction and
use of wastewater
treatment systems
grading or building
permits for this
April, 2005
Impact
No.
3.9C-2
Impact
The operation of wastewater
treatment facilities could
create objectionable odors
that are detectable off-site
during plant upsets or
unusual climatic conditions
such as inversions or stable
atmospheric conditions.
Before
After
Mitigation
Mitigation
Potentially
Significant
Inyo County
Less than
Significant
ES-36
Mitigation
No.
3.9C-2
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Monitoring
relationship between the rate
of percolation in the ponds
and nitrates in the
groundwater. If rapid
infiltration is the cause of
elevated nitrate levels, the
pond bottoms shall be
engineered to control the rate
of percolation. The area
proposed for new percolation
ponds shall be tested for
percolation rates to determine
that the area is adequate for
disposal of treated
wastewater. Alternatively,
wastewater treatment facilities
shall be designed to nitrify
and denitrify the effluent so
there would be no net impact
on groundwater.
project component
and future project
phases.
Groundwater
quality shall be
monitored as
required by the
Regional Water
Quality Control
Board.
The wastewater treatment
facilities shall be designed to
control and mitigate odors so
that off-site detection is
minimized. Facility design
shall be reviewed and
approved by the Regional
Water Quality Control Board,
Lahontan Region, and Inyo
The Public Works
(Building and
Safety)
Department will be
responsible for
verifying approval
of the facility
designs by the
Lahontan Regional
April, 2005
Impact
No.
3.9C-3
Impact
On-site sewage disposal
systems for Phases I and II
that are improperly sited or
designed have the potential
to adversely affect
Before
After
Mitigation
Mitigation
Potentially
Significant
Inyo County
Less than
Significant
ES-37
Mitigation
No.
3.9C-3
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Monitoring
County Environmental Health
Services Department to verify
that appropriate odor control
features are incorporated prior
to the issuance of permits for
all phases of this project.
Water Quality
Control Board and
Inyo County
Environmental
Health Services
Department prior
to issuance of
building permits
for the facilities.
After construction,
the Environmental
Health Services
Department will
respond to any
odor complaints
received and
coordinate with
these agencies and
the operator of the
wastewater
treatment and
disposal facilities
as necessary to
provide a remedy.
On-site sewage disposal
system designs shall be
reviewed and permitted by the
Inyo County Environmental
Health Services Department.
The Inyo County
Environmental
Health Services
Department will be
responsible for
April, 2005
Impact
No.
Impact
Before
After
Mitigation
Mitigation
groundwater quality.
Inyo County
ES-38
Mitigation
No.
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Monitoring
The design shall be based on
soil profile and percolation
test data taken at the site of the
proposed disposal systems.
Special engineered designs
may be required to achieve
compliance with applicable
regulations.
reviewing soil
profile and
percolation test
results for each
proposed septic
system site, and
the design of
proposed septic
systems, through
their permit
process. The Inyo
County Public
Works (Building
and Safety)
Department shall
verify that permits
for septic systems
have been obtained
from the County
Environmental
Health Services
Department for
any subsequent
projects prior to
issuance of
grading or building
permits.
April, 2005
Impact
No.
Impact
3.10 Biological Resources
3.10-1 Impacts to native vegetation
in Phase I.
Before
After
Mitigation
Mitigation
Potentially
Significant
Inyo County
Less than
Significant
ES-39
Mitigation
No.
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Monitoring
3.10-1
To mitigate the potentially
significant on-site and off-site
project impacts due to the
spread of the noxious weeds
salt cedar (Tamarix
ramosissima) and halogeton
(Halogeton glomeratus), a
monitoring and control
program shall be established
to prevent the spread of these
species on-site, where if
unchecked they could create
off-site effects. Review of the
detailed operating plan for the
wastewater treatment plant
effluent disposal area shall be
conducted to identify
procedures that could be
implemented to minimize
potential invasion of these
noxious weed species.
Monitoring of salt
cedar and
halogeton
infestations shall
be conducted at
least once or twice
each year to keep
seedlings from
surviving to
produce seed.
This must be done
for at least 10
years because
halogeton seeds
can remain
dormant for that
long (Bossard, et
al. 2000).
Monitoring shall
be conducted by a
qualified botanist
hired by the
project operator,
and reports filed
with the Inyo
County Planning
Department and
CDFG.
April, 2005
Impact
No.
Impact
3.10-2
Impacts to native vegetation
in Phase II.
Before
After
Mitigation
Mitigation
Potentially
Less than
Significant
Significant
Inyo County
ES-40
Mitigation
No.
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Monitoring
3.10-2
To mitigate the potentially
significant on-site and off-site
project impacts due to the
spread of the noxious weeds
salt cedar (Tamarix
ramosissima) and halogeton
(Halogeton glomeratus), a
monitoring and control
program, as discussed in
Mitigation Measure #3.10-1,
shall be established to prevent
the spread of these species onsite, where if unchecked they
could create off-site effects.
Monitoring of salt
cedar and
halogeton
infestations is
recommended at
least once or twice
each year to keep
seedlings from
surviving to
produce seed.
This must be done
for at least 10
years because
halogeton seeds
can remain
dormant for that
long (Bossard, et
al. 2000).
Monitoring shall
be conducted by a
qualified botanist
hired by the
project operator,
and reports filed
with the Inyo
County Planning
Department and
CDFG.
April, 2005
Impact
No.
Impact
Before
After
Mitigation
Mitigation
No Impact
3.10-3
Impacts to special status
plant species in Phase I.
3.10-4
Impacts to special status
plant species in Phase II.
No Impact
3.10-5
Impact to Mohave ground
squirrels and other small
mammal species in Phase I.
Significant
Significant &
Unavoidable
Mitigation
No.
3.10-5
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Monitoring
None required.
None required.
None required.
None required.
The CDFG’s objective in the
conservation of the Mohave
ground squirrel is “the
complete protection of habitat
sufficient in size, pattern of
distribution, and quality to
enable the Mohave ground
squirrel to survive in the longterm. In order to achieve this
objective, habitat must be
protected throughout the
geographic range of the
species in a pattern that allows
gene flow (the transmission of
inheritable characteristics)
from population to population,
and that allows populations to
be self-sustaining. Protected
habitat must be free of
incompatible land-uses”
(Gustafson 1993).
Compliance with
this measure shall
be a condition of
approval of the
Conditional Use
Permit and must
be demonstrated
any permits by
Inyo County for
ground-disturbing
activities in Phase
I. Ongoing
monitoring will be
the responsibility
of the County
Planning
Department and
CDFG.
Compensatory mitigation for
Mohave ground squirrel
Inyo County
ES-41
April, 2005
Impact
No.
Impact
Before
After
Mitigation
Mitigation
Mitigation
No.
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Monitoring
habitat loss at a rate of 3 acres
protected for every one acre
lost to development shall be
accomplished by one and/or a
combination of the following
four measures (Gustafson
1993):
a) Acquire lands at a 3:1 ratio
that support optimum
habitat in Inyo County, at
a location which would be
approved by the CDFG;
and pay a one time
endowment fee for the
long-term management of
these lands, the cost of
which shall be negotiated
between Crystal Geyser
Roxane and the CDFG.
b) Establish a permanent
wildlife easement on the
undeveloped portion of the
120.4-acre project site and
eliminate livestock grazing
by fencing the entire site.
Inyo County
ES-42
April, 2005
Impact
No.
Impact
Before
After
Mitigation
Mitigation
Mitigation
No.
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Monitoring
c) Purchase grazing leases on
BLM grazing allotments in
Inyo County within the
range and in the habitat of
the Mohave ground
squirrel and eliminate
livestock grazing on these
lands.
d) Restore disturbed native
vegetation within the
the Mohave ground
squirrel on public or State
lands in Inyo County.
To mitigate for indirect
impacts associated with a
potential increase in the
common raven population
near the site, the lids on all
trash receptacles at the
bottling plant shall fit tightly
and be kept closed. Waste
shall be removed from the
site as often as necessary to
reduce the potential to
overflow receptacles. In
addition, Crystal Geyser
Roxane shall sponsor a litter
Inyo County
ES-43
April, 2005
Impact
No.
Impact
Before
After
Mitigation
Mitigation
Mitigation
No.
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Monitoring
collection program in the
project vicinity to reduce
trash and to further decrease
the probability of attracting
common ravens.
3.10-6
Impacts to Mohave ground
squirrels and other small
mammal species in Phase II.
Significant &
Cumulative
Inyo County
Significant,
Cumulative
&
Unavoidable
ES-44
Compliance with
this measure must
be demonstrated
any permit(s) by
Inyo County for
ground-disturbing
activities in Phase
Il. Monitoring will
a) Acquire lands at a 3:1 ratio be the
responsibility of
that support optimum
the County
Planning
habitat in Inyo County, at
a location which would be Department and
CDFG.
approved by the CDFG;
and pay a one time
endowment fee for the
long-term management of
these lands, the cost of
which shall be negotiated
between Crystal Geyser
Roxane and the CDFG.
Compensatory mitigation at a
rate of 3 acres protected for
every one acre lost to
development shall be
accomplished by one and/or a
combination of the following
three measures (Gustafson
1993):
April, 2005
Impact
No.
Impact
Before
After
Mitigation
Mitigation
Mitigation
No.
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Monitoring
b) Purchase grazing leases on
BLM grazing allotments in
Inyo County with in the
the Mohave ground
squirrel and eliminate
livestock grazing on these
lands.
c) Restore disturbed native
vegetation within the
the Mohave ground
squirrel on public or State
lands in Inyo County.
None required.
None required.
3.10-7
Impact to bats in Phase I.
Less than
Significant
3.10-8
Impacts to bats in Phase II.
Less than
Significant
None required.
None required.
3.10-9
Impacts to other mammals in
Phase I.
Less than
Significant
None required.
None required.
3.10-10
Impact on other mammals in
Phase II.
Less than
Significant
None required.
None required.
3.10-11
Impacts to desert tortoises
and other reptiles in Phase I.
Potentially
Significant
In the event Caltrans or other
multi-county entity creates a
mechanism to provide fair
Compliance with
this measure shall
be a condition of
Inyo County
3.10-11
ES-45
April, 2005
Impact
No.
Impact
Before
After
Mitigation
Mitigation
3.10-12
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Monitoring
share funding for a desert
tortoise exclusion fence along
portions of U.S. Highway 395
prior to buildout of the Crystal
Geyser Roxane project site,
Crystal Geyser or its
successors shall contribute a
fair share, based on trips that
would be generated.
approval of the
Conditional Use
Permit.
Monitoring will be
the responsibility
of the Inyo County
Planning
Department.
In the event Caltrans or other
multi-county entity creates a
mechanism to provide fair
share funding for a desert
tortoise exclusion fence along
portions of U.S. Highway 395
prior to buildout of the Crystal
Geyser Roxane project site,
Crystal Geyser or its
successors shall contribute a
fair share, based on trips that
would be generated.
Compliance with
this measure shall
be a condition of
approval of the
Conditional Use
Permit.
Monitoring will be
the responsibility
of the Inyo County
Planning
Department.
3.10-12
Impacts to desert tortoises
and other reptiles in Phase II.
Potentially
Significant
3.10-13
Impacts to Swainson’s
hawks and other raptors in
Phase I.
Less than
Significant
None required.
None required.
3.10-14
Impacts to Swainson’s
hawks and other raptors in
Phase II.
Less than
Significant
None required.
None required.
Inyo County
Potentially
Significant
&
Unavoidable
Mitigation
No.
ES-46
April, 2005
Impact
No.
3.10-15
Impact
Impacts to other birds in
Phase I.
Before
After
Mitigation
Mitigation
Potentially
Less than
Significant
Significant
Mitigation
No.
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Monitoring
3.10-15
Phase I ground-disturbing
activities shall be conducted
during the non-breeding
season for passerine birds,
approximately mid July to mid
February. In addition a
qualified
biologist/ornithologist shall
conduct a pre-construction
survey for burrowing owls on
site within 30 days of the
onset of ground disturbing
activities. Surveys shall be
based on the accepted
protocols as detailed in the
California Department of Fish
and Game Staff Report on
(http://www.dfg.ca.gov/hcpb/s
pecies/stds_gdl/bird_sg/burow
lmit.pdf).
This measure shall
be included as a
condition of
approval for the
Conditional Use
Permit.
Compliance with
this measure shall
be demonstrated
prior to any
ground-disturbing
activities in Phase
I. Monitoring
shall be conducted
by the Inyo
County Public
Works (Building
and Safety)
Department and
CDFG.
In the event the survey
discovers burrowing owls on
the site, ground disturbing
construction activities shall be
additionally limited to the
period September 1 through
January 31, the non breeding
season for burrowing owls.
Inyo County
ES-47
April, 2005
Impact
No.
Impact
Before
After
Mitigation
Mitigation
Mitigation
No.
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Monitoring
If burrowing owls are found
on the project site, the
following measures from the
CDFG Burrowing Owl Survey
Protocol and Mitigation
Guidelines shall be
implemented.
1. All owls associated with
occupied burrows that will
be directly impacted
(temporarily or
permanently) by the
project shall be relocated
and the following
measures shall be
implemented to avoid take
of owls:
a. Occupied burrows
shall not be disturbed
during the nesting
season of February 1
through August 31,
unless a qualified
biologist can verify
through non-Invasive
methods that either the
owls have not begun
egg laying and
Inyo County
ES-48
April, 2005
Impact
No.
Impact
Before
After
Mitigation
Mitigation
Mitigation
No.
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Monitoring
incubation or that
juveniles from the
occupied burrows are
foraging Independently
and are capable of
Independent flight.
b. Owls must be
relocated by a
qualified biologist
from any occupied
burrows that will be
impacted by project
activities. Suitable
habitat must be
available adjacent to or
near the disturbance
site or artificial
burrows will need to
be provided nearby.
Once the biologist has
confirmed that the
owls have left the
burrow, burrows
should be excavated
using hand tools and
refilled to prevent
reoccupation.
Inyo County
ES-49
April, 2005
Impact
No.
Impact
Before
After
Mitigation
Mitigation
Mitigation
No.
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Monitoring
c. All relocation shall be
approved by the
Department. The
permitted biologist
shall monitor the
relocated owls a
minimum of three days
per week for a
minimum of three
weeks. A report
summarizing the
results of the
relocation and
monitoring shall be
submitted to the
Department within 30
days following
completion of the
relocation and
monitoring of the
owls.
2. A Burrowing Owl
Mitigation and Monitoring
Plan shall be submitted to
the Department for review
and approval prior to
relocation of owls. The
Burrowing Owl Mitigation
and Monitoring Plan shall
Inyo County
ES-50
April, 2005
Impact
No.
Impact
Before
After
Mitigation
Mitigation
Mitigation
No.
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Monitoring
describe proposed
relocation and monitoring
plans. The plan shall
Include the number and
location of occupied
burrow sites and details on
adjacent or nearby suitable
habitat available to owls
for relocation. If no
suitable habitat is
available nearby for
relocation, details
regarding the creation of
artificial burrows
(numbers, location, and
type of burrows) shall also
be included in the plan.
The Plan shall also
describe proposed off-site
areas to preserve to
compensate for Impacts to
burrowing owls/occupied
burrows at the project site
as required under
Condition 1.
3. As compensation for the
direct loss of burrowing
owl nesting and foraging
habitat, the project
Inyo County
ES-51
April, 2005
Impact
No.
Impact
Before
After
Mitigation
Mitigation
Mitigation
No.
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Monitoring
proponent shall mitigate
by acquiring and
permanently protecting
known burrowing owl
nesting and foraging
habitat (The acquisition of
burrowing owl habitat can
be linked with other
habitat acquisition that
may be required for this
project) at the following
ratio:
a. Replacement of
occupied habitat with
occupied habitat at 1.5
times 6.5 acres per pair
or single bird;
b. Replacement of
habitat contiguous
with occupied habitat
at 2 times 8.5 acres per
pair or single bird;
and/or
c. Replacement of
suitable unoccupied
Inyo County
ES-52
April, 2005
Impact
No.
Impact
Before
After
Mitigation
Mitigation
Mitigation
No.
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Monitoring
habitat at 3 times 6.5
acres per pair or single
bird.
4. The project proponent
shall establish a nonwasting endowment
account for the long term
management of the
preservation site for
burrowing owls. The site
shall be managed for the
benefit of burrowing owls.
The preservation site, site
management, and
endowment shall be
approved by the
Department.
3.10-16
Impacts to other birds in
Phase II.
Potentially
Significant
Inyo County
Less than
Significant
ES-53
3.10-16
Phase II ground-disturbing
activities shall be conducted
during the non-breeding
season for passerine birds,
approximately mid July to mid
February. In addition a
qualified
biologist/ornithologist shall
conduct a pre-construction
survey for burrowing owls on
site within 30 days of the
This measure shall
be demonstrated
any permit(s) for
ground-disturbing
activities in Phase
II. Monitoring
shall be conducted
by the Inyo
County Public
Works (Building
April, 2005
Impact
No.
Impact
Before
After
Mitigation
Mitigation
Mitigation
No.
Mitigation Measure
onset of ground disturbing
activities. Surveys shall be
based on the accepted
protocols as detailed in the
California Department of Fish
and Game Staff Report on
(http://www.dfg.ca.gov/hcpb/s
pecies/stds_gdl/bird_sg/burow
lmit.pdf)
Implementation
Monitoring
and Safety)
Department and
CDFG.
In the event the survey
discovers burrowing owls on
the site, ground disturbing
construction activities shall be
additionally limited to the
period September 1 through
January 31, the non breeding
season for burrowing owls.
If burrowing owls are found
on the project site, the
following measures from the
CDFG Burrowing Owl Survey
Protocol and Mitigation
Guidelines shall be
implemented.
1. All owls associated with
occupied burrows that will
Inyo County
ES-54
April, 2005
Impact
No.
Impact
Before
After
Mitigation
Mitigation
Mitigation
No.
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Monitoring
be directly impacted
(temporarily or
permanently) by the
project shall be relocated
and the following
measures shall be
implemented to avoid take
of owls:
a. Occupied burrows
shall not be disturbed
during the nesting
season of February 1
through August 31,
unless a qualified
biologist can verify
through non-Invasive
methods that either the
owls have not begun
egg laying and
incubation or that
juveniles from the
occupied burrows are
foraging Independently
and are capable of
Independent flight.
b. Owls must be
relocated by a
qualified biologist
Inyo County
ES-55
April, 2005
Impact
No.
Impact
Before
After
Mitigation
Mitigation
Mitigation
No.
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Monitoring
from any occupied
burrows that will be
impacted by project
activities. Suitable
habitat must be
available adjacent to or
near the disturbance
site or artificial
burrows will need to
be provided nearby.
Once the biologist has
confirmed that the
owls have left the
burrow, burrows
should be excavated
using hand tools and
refilled to prevent
reoccupation.
c. All relocation shall be
approved by the
Department. The
permitted biologist
shall monitor the
relocated owls a
minimum of three days
per week for a
minimum of three
weeks. A report
summarizing the
Inyo County
ES-56
April, 2005
Impact
No.
Impact
Before
After
Mitigation
Mitigation
Mitigation
No.
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Monitoring
results of the
relocation and
monitoring shall be
submitted to the
Department within 30
days following
completion of the
relocation and
monitoring of the
owls.
2. A Burrowing Owl
Mitigation and Monitoring
Plan shall be submitted to
the Department for review
and approval prior to
relocation of owls. The
Burrowing Owl Mitigation
and Monitoring Plan shall
describe proposed
relocation and monitoring
plans. The plan shall
Include the number and
location of occupied
burrow sites and details on
adjacent or nearby suitable
habitat available to owls
for relocation. If no
suitable habitat is available
nearby for relocation,
Inyo County
ES-57
April, 2005
Impact
No.
Impact
Before
After
Mitigation
Mitigation
Mitigation
No.
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Monitoring
details regarding the
creation of artificial
burrows (numbers,
location, and type of
burrows) shall also be
included in the plan. The
Plan shall also describe
proposed off-site areas to
preserve to compensate for
Impacts to burrowing
owls/occupied burrows at
the project site as required
under Condition 1.
3. As compensation for the
direct loss of burrowing
owl nesting and foraging
habitat, the project
proponent shall mitigate
by acquiring and
permanently protecting
known burrowing owl
nesting and foraging
habitat (The acquisition of
burrowing owl habitat can
be linked with other
habitat acquisition that
may be required for this
project) at the following
ratio:
Inyo County
ES-58
April, 2005
Impact
No.
Impact
Before
After
Mitigation
Mitigation
Mitigation
No.
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Monitoring
a. Replacement of
occupied habitat at 1.5
times 6.5 acres per pair
or single bird;
b. Replacement of
habitat contiguous
with occupied habitat
at 2 times 8.5 acres per
pair or single bird;
and/or
c. Replacement of
suitable unoccupied
habitat at 3 times 6.5
acres per pair or single
bird.
The project proponent shall
establish a non-wasting
endowment account for the
long term management of the
preservation site for
burrowing owls. The site
shall be managed for the
benefit of burrowing owls.
The preservation site, site
Inyo County
ES-59
April, 2005
Impact
No.
Impact
Before
After
Mitigation
Mitigation
3.10-17
Impacts to San Emigdio blue
butterflies and other
invertebrate species in Phase
I.
Less than
Significant
3.10-18
Impacts to San Emigdio blue
butterflies and other
invertebrate species in Phase
II.
Less than
Significant
3.10-19
Impacts to wildlife at
Olancha Spring from
increased noise, light and
human visitation.
Potentially
Significant &
Cumulative
Inyo County
Less than
Significant
ES-60
Mitigation
No.
3.10-19
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Monitoring
management, and endowment
shall be approved by the
Department.
None required.
None required.
None required.
None required.
Crystal Geyser Roxane and
any other future developers on
the project site shall establish
an education program to
inform employees of the
sensitivity of Olancha Spring
and to discourage them from
using the area for recreation.
Crystal Geyser Roxane shall
also post signs on the
boundary between the project
site and the spring reminding
employees that the spring is a
protected resource. (Also see
Mitigation Measures #3.5-2A
and #3.5-2B regarding control
of lighting)
Crystal Geyser
Roxane and its
successors shall be
responsible for
developing and
implementing the
educational
program and
putting up the
signage. The Inyo
County Planning
Department shall
review the
program and
signage as a
condition of
certifying
April, 2005
Impact
No.
Impact
Before
After
Mitigation
Mitigation
Mitigation
No.
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Monitoring
occupancy of the
bottling plant or
other future
facilities.
3.10-20
Groundwater pumping
impacts to wetlands and
special status species at
Olancha Spring.
3.10-21
Loss of approximately 120
acres of winter range habitat
for deer due to construction
and occupancy of the
proposed 10-acre Crystal
Geyser Roxane Beverage
Bottling Plant and the
remaining 110-acre light
industrial park.
3.11 Cultural Resources
3.11-1 Potential disturbance or
destruction of Site CA-INY5953 (Blue Chip #1) due to
construction on the project
site.
3.11-2
Potential disturbance or
destruction of Site CA-INY5954 (Blue Chip #2) and Site
Significant & Significant &
Unavoidable Unavoidable
Same as Mitigation Measure
#3.9B-3.
Same as
Mitigation
Measure #3.9B-3.
Less than
Significant
None required.
None required.
Less than
Significant
None required.
None required.
Less than
Significant
None required.
None required.
Inyo County
ES-61
3.10-20
April, 2005
Impact
No.
Impact
Before
After
Mitigation
Mitigation
Mitigation
No.
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Monitoring
CA-INY-6496 (Blue Chip
#4) due to construction on
the project site.
3.11-3
destruction of Site CA-INY6499 (Blue Chip #7) due to
construction on the project
site.
Less than
Significant
None required.
None required.
3.11-4
destruction of Site CA-INY6495 (Blue Chip #3), CAINY-6497 (Blue Chip #5),
and CA-INY-6498 (Blue
Chip #6) due to construction
on the project site.
Less than
Significant
None required.
None required.
3.11-5
Potential disturbance and
destruction of Site CA-INY323 due to construction on
the project site.
Potentially
Significant
If project improvements
intrude on Site CA-INY-323,
a representative of a local
tribe and a qualified
archaeologist shall be present
to ensure that important
subsurface cultural deposits
are not disturbed whenever
the following grounddisturbing activities occur on
the project site: grading,
cutting, filling, trenching or
Developers will
include these
requirements in
any project
construction
contracts and
specifications. In
addition to the
construction
superintendent, all
construction
personnel involved
Inyo County
Less than
Significant
ES-62
3.11-5
April, 2005
Impact
No.
Impact
Before
After
Mitigation
Mitigation
Inyo County
ES-63
Mitigation
No.
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Monitoring
any other ground-disturbing
activity associated with
project construction. The
qualified archaeologist shall
verify the presence of any
previously unidentified
cultural resources (e.g.,
unusual amounts of nonnative stone [obsidian, finegrained silicates, basalt],
bone, shells, prehistoric or
historic period artifacts [such
as purple glass, beads,
arrowheads, stone tools, etc.;
concentrations of cans and
bottles; structural remains]).
Work in the immediate
vicinity shall cease, and the
Inyo County Planning
Department shall be notified
immediately. An evaluation
of the significance of the find
relative to CEQA impact
evaluation criteria and
identification of appropriate
mitigation shall be prepared
by the qualified archaeologist.
The archaeologist shall submit
appropriate recommendations
to the Planning Department.
in grounddisturbing
activities during
project
construction will
sign documents
acknowledging
that they have
been informed of
these requirements
and will comply.
A qualified
archaeologist and
local Native
American, as
appropriate, will
be retained to
serve as a monitor
whenever ground
disturbing
activities occur.
The Planning
Department will
make final
determinations
resulting in any
required action or
mitigation.
April, 2005
Impact
No.
Impact
3.11-6
destruction of Site CA-INY4837 due to construction on
the project site, which would
be in conflict with Inyo
County General Plan Policy
CUL-1.3.
destruction of subsurface or
previously undiscovered sites
due to construction on the
project site, which would be
in conflict with Inyo County
General Plan Policy CUL1.3.
3.11-7
Before
After
Mitigation
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Potentially
Significant
Inyo County
Less than
Significant
ES-64
Mitigation
No.
3.11-7A
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Monitoring
None required.
None required.
In the event that subsurface
cultural resources are
encountered during
development, the Inyo County
Planning Department shall be
notified immediately and
work shall cease until a
qualified archaeologist and a
local Native American
monitor (if appropriate) can
be consulted. The qualified
archaeologist shall verify the
presence of any previously
unidentified cultural resources
(e.g., unusual amounts of nonnative stone [obsidian, finegrained silicates, basalt],
bone, shells, prehistoric or
historic period artifacts [such
as purple glass, beads,
arrowheads, stone tools, etc.;
concentrations of cans and
bottles; structural remains]).
Developers shall
include these
requirements in
any project
construction
contracts and
specifications. In
addition to the
construction
superintendent, all
construction
personnel involved
in grounddisturbing
activities during
project
construction shall
sign documents
acknowledging
that they have
been informed of
these requirements
and will comply.
April, 2005
Impact
No.
Impact
Before
After
Mitigation
Mitigation
Potentially
Significant
Inyo County
Less than
Significant
ES-65
Mitigation
No.
3.11-7B
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Monitoring
An evaluation of the
significance of the find
relative to CEQA impact
evaluation criteria and
identification of appropriate
mitigation shall be prepared
by the qualified archaeologist.
The archaeologist shall submit
appropriate recommendations
to the Planning Department.
A qualified
archaeologist
and/or a local
Native American
monitor will be
retained as needed
should
unidentified
cultural resources
be discovered.
The Planning
Department will
make final
determinations
resulting in any
required action or
mitigation.
Construction
activities shall be
monitored by the
Inyo County
Department of
Public Works
(Building and
Safety)
Department.
Developers will
include these
requirements in
any project
In the event that grading,
cutting, filling, trenching or
any other ground-disturbing
activity associated with
April, 2005
Impact
No.
Impact
Before
After
Mitigation
Mitigation
Inyo County
ES-66
Mitigation
No.
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Monitoring
project construction reveals
the presence of any skeletal
remains, State law requires
immediate notification of the
County Coroner. The Inyo
County Planning Department
shall also be notified
immediately. If the remains
found are a Native American
burial site, the Planning
Department shall notify
interested Native Americans
in the county within three
days of notification of the
existence of the site by project
representatives. If the
Planning Department finds
that avoidance of the site is
infeasible, the Planning
Department shall expressly
permit interested Native
Americans to relocate the
burial site within 11 days. If
the burial site is not relocated
by Native Americans within
11 days, the project sponsor
may do so. Relocation shall
be as close to the original
burial site as possible.
construction
contracts and
specifications.
The construction
superintendent and
all construction
personnel who will
be involved in
ground-disturbing
activities during
project
construction will
sign documents
acknowledging
that they have
been informed of
these requirements
and will comply.
Construction
activities shall be
monitored by the
Inyo County
Department of
Public Works
(Building and
Safety)
Department.
April, 2005

Crystal Geyser Roxane: Beverage Bottling Plant

Transcription

Similar documents

PDF - City of Terrell Hills

(707) 942-6463 • www.oldfaithfulgeyser.com

Letter

Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route (AWPR)

MABAS 47

PDF file

Georgia Emergency Management Agency Homeland

Class IX

Marina de Joyuda - staging.files.cms.plus.com