environmental assessment for the hog lake road improvement project

FINAL 

FRANK SPRINGER & ASSOCIATES, INC. 

355 WEST GRAND AVE. SUITE 2, ESCONDIDO, CA 92025 

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

FOR THE HOG LAKE ROAD 

IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 

RAMONA INDIAN RESERVATION 

ANZA, CA 

_________________________________ 

Prepared For: 

_________________________________ 

_ 

Reservation Transportation Authority 

28860 Old Town Front Street, Suite C-1 

Temecula, CA 92590 

August 2011

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Summary ........................................................................................................ 1 

Introduction .................................................................................................... 2 

Document Structure ........................................................................................... 3 

Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need ..................................................................... 4 

Background ........................................................................................................ 4 

Purpose and Need ............................................................................................. 9 

Forest Plan Consistency .................................................................................... 9 

Proposed Action ............................................................................................... 11 

Decision Framework ........................................................................................ 12 

Public Involvement ........................................................................................... 12 

Chapter 2 – Alternatives.............................................................................. 13 

The Proposed Action Alternative ...................................................................... 13 

The “No Action” Alternative .............................................................................. 20 

Comparison of Alternatives .............................................................................. 21 

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences . 24 

Cumulative Effects ........................................................................................... 24 

Projects Considered When Determining Cumulative Impacts .......................... 25 

Air Quality ........................................................................................................ 29 

Aesthetics / Visual Resources.......................................................................... 37 

Biological Resources ....................................................................................... 38 

Heritage Resources ......................................................................................... 51 

Fire Risk ........................................................................................................... 54 

Land Use, Ownership, Easements, Traffic, and Road Maintenance ................ 56 

Socio-economic and Noise Effects .................................................................. 59 

Soil and Hydrology ........................................................................................... 61 

Chapter 4 - Consultation and Communication ......................................... 77 

References ................................................................................................... 78

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1: Mitigation Measures / Design Criteria .........................................................15 

Table 2: Comparison of Alternatives ........................................................................21 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1: General Vicinity ...........................................................................................5 

Figure 2: Proposed Project Overview .........................................................................6 

Figure 3: Land Ownership and Proposed Easements ................................................8 

Figure 4: Typical Section With 2% Road Cross-Slope..............................................13 

Figure 5: 10’ x 5’ Double Box Culvert .......................................................................14 

Figure 6: Administrative Boundaries.........................................................................26 

Figure 7: Air Quality Management Districts .............................................................33 

Figure 8: Vegetation Communities ...........................................................................39 

Figure 9: Land Use ...................................................................................................58 

Figure 10: Soils ........................................................................................................70 

Figure 11: Geology ...................................................................................................71 

Figure 12: Watersheds and Wilderness Areas .........................................................74 

Figure 13: Jurisdictional Drainages ..........................................................................75

Ramona Hog Lake Road Improvement Project August 2011 

Summary 

The Reservation Transportation Authority (a consortium of 19 Southern California 

Indian tribes) proposes to implement the Hog Lake Road Improvement Project in two 

parts. The first part of the proposed Project will occur along Hog Lake Road, from 

the intersection of Wheat Road extending northeast to just past the first intersection 

inside the Reservation of the Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians (Ramona 

Reservation) boundary. These road improvements will occur on National Forest land 

and Ramona Reservation land. The first part of the road improvements is presently 

funded The second part of the proposed Project will occur along Hog Lake Road, 

extending northeast from Bautista Road to Wheat Road. These road improvements 

will occur on privately held land in the future, once funding has been secured. The 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and the USDA Forest 

Service (Forest Service) will use this Environmental Assessment (EA) to meet the 

federal environmental requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

and other relevant Federal and State laws and regulations,. Based upon the results 

of this EA, the BIA as Lead Agency and Forest Service as Cooperating Agency will 

decide whether a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) should be issued or 

whether an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) should be prepared. 

The paved route will facilitate safer, easier access for residents and provide for 

improved emergency vehicle response time and evacuation route. The installation of 

striping and signage will improve road safety and navigation. Repair of structural 

deficiencies and improved drainage structures will prevent road erosion. In short, a 

road reconstructed, improved and frequently maintained will be much safer for 

residents and visitors, and allow for better and more reliable all-season access. As the 

road crosses federal, private and reservation lands, several easements along the road 

are proposed. The road would be brought into the BIA transportation system, and the 

BIA would assume future responsibilities for road reconstruction, improvement and 

maintenance. The proposed Project will, through issuance of these easements, create 

efficiencies in road maintenance and management. 

Resources such as cultural sites, wildlife, plants, soil, and hydrology will be protected 

as directed by applicable Federal and State laws and regulations, as well as the 

2006 San Bernardino National Forest Land Management Plan (LMP). There is 

suitable and occupied habitat for the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly in the area. 

Frank Springer & Associates, Inc. Page 1 of 79 Environmental Assessment


Introduction 

The Reservation Transportation Authority (RTA) is a consortium of 19 Southern 

California Indian tribes whose purpose is to plan, design and build roads on its 

members' reservations and to advocate for tribal transportation needs. The RTA 

proposes to implement the Hog Lake Road Improvement Project (Project) with 

funding assistance from the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs 

(BIA). The proposed Project will pave the surface of the Hog Lake Road, upgrade 

drainage structures, correct road structure deficiencies, provide better emergency 

vehicle access to the Ramona Reservation, and improve safety through the 

installation of signs and striping on U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service 

(Forest Service), National Forest System lands and privately held lands owned by 

the Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians (Ramona Tribe) and another private individual. 

Initially formed in 1998, the RTA is a joint, subordinate branch of its member tribal 

governments and is recognized by the federal government as the equivalent of a 

tribal government agency. Each member tribal government appoints one Director to 

represent it on the RTA Board of Directors. The Board of Directors elects five 

Directors who serve as the RTA Executive Board, which is responsible for RTA 

management. RTA funding is made available through Public Law 93-638 federal 

contracts to carry out the BIA Tribal Roads Construction as well as grants and 

contracts for other transportation-related activities and projects from local, state, and 

federal agencies. 

The Hog Lake Road Improvement Project has been designated a “high priority 

project” by the RTA and BIA. The Forest Service has previously granted the Ramona 

Tribe a temporary road use permit for Hog Lake Road; however this permit expired. 

Pursuant to 16 USC 551 and 36 CFR 261.50(a) and (b), and to protect natural 

resources and provide for public safety, National Forest roads are subject to closure 

by Forest Order for a variety of reasons. The Reservation’s “isolated in-holding” 

status warrants a year around long term access authorization. 

In conjunction with proposed road improvements, several easements are proposed 

through federal, private and reservation lands in order to provide reasonable public 

and tribal access as well as to assign road maintenance responsibilities to the 

appropriate parties (see Figure 3). 

The BIA will serve as lead Federal agency for compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA), and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act 

(NHPA), with the Forest Service participating as a Cooperating Agency. The BIA and 

Forest Service will use this EA to determine whether the proposed Project will result 

in significant impacts to the environment and whether a Finding of No Significant 

Impact (FONSI) should be issued or an EIS should be prepared. 



The Regional Director, Pacific Regional Office for the BIA is the deciding official for 

the BIA. The Regional Forester, Pacific Southwest Regional Office is the responsible 

official for the Forest Service. 

Document Structure 

At the direction of the RTA, Frank Springer & Associates, Inc. has prepared this EA 

in compliance with NEPA and other relevant Federal and State laws and regulations. 

This EA discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that 

would result from the proposed action and alternatives. The proposed Project will 

comply with all local, state and federal laws, regulations and policies including but 

not limited to the National Forest Management Act, the Endangered Species Act, 

and the San Bernardino National Forest Land Management Plan (2006) (LMP). The 

document is organized into four parts: 

Chapter 1. Purpose and Need: This chapter includes information on the 

history of the Project proposal, the purpose of and need for the Project, and 

briefly describes the agency’s proposal for achieving that purpose and need. 

This section also details how the Forest Service informed the public of the 

proposal and how the public responded. 

Chapter 2. Alternatives: This chapter provides a detailed description of the 

RTA’s proposed action as well as alternative methods for achieving the stated 

purpose. These alternatives were developed based on issues raised by the 

public and other agencies. This discussion also includes mitigation measures. 

Finally, this section provides a summary table of the environmental 

consequences associated with each alternative. 

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences: This 

section describes the environmental effects of implementing the proposed 

action and other alternatives. This analysis is organized by resource area. 

Within each section, the affected environment is described first, followed by the 

effects of the No Action Alternative that provides a baseline for evaluation and 

comparison of the other alternatives that follow. 

Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination: This chapter provides a list of 

agencies consulted during the development of the environmental assessment. 

Additional documentation, including more detailed analyses of Project-area 

resources, may be found in the Project planning record located at the San 

Bernardino National Forest, San Jacinto Ranger District, Ranger Station located at 

54270 Pine Crest Road, Idyllwild, CA 92549, phone number: 909-382-2922. 



Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need 

Background 

The Ramona Reservation is located approximately 30 miles east of the City of 

Temecula and 4 miles north of the town of Anza in Riverside County, California, as 

indicated in Figure 1, General Location. The Ramona Reservation occupies 

approximately 560 acres near Thomas Mountain. Hog Lake Road, also known as 

Forest Service Route 6S18, provides the sole means of road access to the Ramona 

Reservation, and is consequently extremely important to the Ramona Tribe. Besides 

crossing private parcels, outside the Forest boundary, the road crosses federal 

parcels managed by the Forest Service before entering the Ramona Reservation. 

Nearby transportation routes include U.S. 371 to the south and State Highway 74 to 

the east. 

As illustrated in Figure 2, Proposed Project Overview, the project consists of two 

parts. The first part begins on Hog Lake Road at the intersection of Wheat Road, 

and extends northeast along Hog Lake Road for 6,390 feet through National Forest 

System land and a further 987 feet north through Ramona Reservation land, 

terminating just past the first intersection past the Reservation boundary. The 

second part of the Project begins at the intersection of Hog Lake Road and Bautista 

Road and extends 1,096 feet northeast along Hog Lake Road, through privately 

owned land to the intersection of Hog Lake Road and Wheat Road. This document 

addresses the federal environmental NEPA requirements for both parts of the 

Project. Due to the second part of the project occurring on privately held lands, 

implementation of the second part will require CEQA compliance in order to meet 

State and County requirements. The information contained within this EA may be 

used in partial fulfillment of those requirements. 

Hog Lake Road is a 8,473 foot-long unpaved road extending northeast from Bautista 

Road to the Ramona Reservation, and then turns north through the Ramona 

Reservation. The proposed road improvements extend through Township 7 South, 

Range 2 East, Section 1; Township 6 South, Range 2 East, Section 36; and 

Township 6 South, Range 3 East, Section 30 and 31; within the Anza Quadrangle. 

Federal lands underlie Hog Lake Road beginning at the intersection of Wheat Road, 

at the Forest Boundary, and extend northeast along Hog Lake Road for 6,390 feet to 

the Ramona Indian Reservation Boundary. Construction activity will extend a further 

987 feet northeast through the Reservation, terminating just past the first road 

intersection. Non-federal privately held lands begin at the intersection of Hog Lake 

Road and Bautista Road and extend 1,096 feet northeast to Wheat Road, at the 

Forest Boundary. 



Figure 1: General Vicinity 



Figure 2: Proposed Project Overview 



Hog Lake Road has structural problems caused by inadequate drainage. The width 

of the road varies and is difficult to maintain. Line of sight is insufficient along many 

lengths of the road, presenting safety concerns. Heavy rain, ice or snow on the 

road.in winter often prevents access to the Ramona Reservation, as poor weather 

makes the already poor road conditions even more treacherous. Emergency vehicle 

access to the Ramona Reservation is presently slowed due to poor road conditions 

and a lack of signage. An improved access road would allow faster, more efficient 

navigation and access for emergency vehicles. 

As seen in Figure 2, Hog Lake Road crosses over two privately owned parcels. The 

travel route crossing the private land is not recognized in the County Transportation 

System. Neither the Forest Service nor the BIA has a recorded easement across the 

private lands, the Reservation or Forest lands, respectively. As part of this Proposed 

Action, land use easements along NFR 6S18 alignment will be issued to the Forest 

Service across the private and Ramona Reservation lands and the BIA will be issued 

easements on behalf of the Ramona Tribe across the private and National Forest 

System lands (see Figure 3). 



Figure 3: Land Ownership and Proposed Easements 



Purpose and Need 

There is a need for safe access to and from the Ramona Reservation. The current 

condition of the road does not meet the needs of public safety or resource 

conditions. There is also a need to resolve right-of-way and road maintenance 

issues. 

There is a need for safer, easier access to the Ramona Reservation for residents and 

Tribal members and for improved emergency vehicle response time. The current 

access road is unsafe due to lack of striping, inadequate signage, and poor visibility 

(line of sight). In addition, various structural deficiencies are causing road and soil 

erosion. In short, a road reconstructed, improved and frequently maintained would be 

much safer for residents and visitors, and allow for better and more reliable all-season 

access. 

There is also a need for right of ways through both tribal, private, and national forest 

lands. The current landownership pattern requires tribal members to cross national 

forest lands and private lands to access the reservation. Similarly, access to national 

forest lands is through both reservation and private land. Right of access is not legally 

established through the several ownerships. It is desirable that both public and tribal 

access issues be resolved due to current inefficiencies in road maintenance and 

Forest Service inability to meet land management goals. 

In addition, there is a need to reconcile road construction standards between the BIA 

and Forest Service. The BIA designs stream crossings to a 25 – year flood standard 

while the USFS Land and Resource Management Plan requires that such structures 

be constructed to a 50 –year standard. 

Forest Plan Management Direction 

One primary goal of the Forest Plan that would be met is the establishment and 

maintenance of strong relationships and partnerships with Native American tribes. A 

desired condition stated in the LMP is, “…the national forests are maintained in a 

condition so that tribes and other Native American groups and individuals can exercise 

and retain traditional connections to the land and to foster both traditional and 

contemporary cultural uses of the national forests.” Implementation of this proposed 

Project will help the Forest to meet this objective. 

Wildfire prevention and community protection is a priority of the Forest. The Ramona 

Reservation is in a region which has historically been at high risk for wildfires. There 

is an existing fire break (NFR 6S20) that traverses the length of the reservation 

which is considered strategically valuable in preventing the spread of a wildfire or 

structure fire in the area. Hog Lake Road provides the most direct vehicle access to 

the Ramona Reservation; therefore the deteriorated road conditions are of particular 

concern during times when rapid evacuation is required. An improved road would 



provide for safer, faster evacuation for the Ramona Tribe and a more efficient means 

of access for fire and other emergency vehicles to get to the Reservation. 

The goals of the LMP include the conservation of federally listed species habitats, 

and the recovery or movement towards recovery, of listed species. This Project is 

consistent with management direction for threatened, endangered, proposed, 

candidate, and sensitive species management contained in Part 2 of the LMP. 

Resources such as wildlife, plants, soil, and hydrology will be protected as directed 

in the LMP. There is suitable and occupied habitat for the federally endangered 

Quino checkerspot butterfly in the area. Mitigations/design criteria as specified in 

the Section 7 consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will be incorporated to 

ensure that all resources are protected and any potential conflicts are avoided. 

The Project area is located within the Back Country Land Use Zone and the Anza 

“Place”. Suitable Zone activities include: 

Public motorized use on National Forest System Roads 

Road re-construction; 

The establishment of community protection areas and 

Fuelbreak construction 

The Anza “Place”, as described in the LMP, has unique features that need to be 

given attention when projects are proposed. The nearby Bautista Creek has been 

designated a Wild & Scenic River, and the Quino checkerspot butterfly occupied 

habitat adjacent to Hog Lake Road. The southwest slope of Thomas Mountain also 

figures prominently in the Anza “Place”. The proposed Project is consistent with the 

direction in the LMP for the Anza “Place”. 

Forest Service Policy 

Direction from the Forest Service Manual, Roads and Rights-of-way section 2730.2, 

states among the objectives to "accommodate the access needs for the protection, 

development, and utilization of lands and resources owned by private interests … 

when the planned forest development road system and public road system do not 

meet those needs adequately.” Implementation of the Proposed Action would provide 

better access to adjacent Forest Service land, as well as improved access for 

residents who use this road as a primary means of access. 

An additional Forest Service Manual objective is to “protect and enhance the quality 

of air … of Forest Service administered lands in the granting of any right-of-way.” Air 

pollution by particulate matter is a matter of concern in California. Fine Particulate 

Matter (PM) is comprised of dust, dirt, soot, smoke, and other particulates from 

sources such as wind, fires, transportation, and industry. The U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) has designated the County of Riverside as an area of 



“serious” non-attainment area for fine particulate matter (PM10). Paving Hog Lake 

Road would help improve air quality in the immediate area, as it would decrease 

fugitive dust production by vehicles driving on the road. This would enhance the 

quality of wildlife and botanical resources adjacent to the project area. Paving the 

road would also decrease noise caused by vehicles traversing the road. 

The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) gives direction on providing diversity 

of plant and animal communities, and for providing habitat to maintain viable 

populations of existing native and desired non-native vertebrate species in planning 

areas. Further direction is given in the 1983 USDA Departmental Regulation 9500-4 

that habitats for all existing native and desired non-native wildlife species will be 

managed to maintain at least viable populations of such species. The regulations at 

36 CFR 219.20 give direction on ecological sustainability, including species diversity 

and providing for viability of wildlife populations. 

Proposed Action 

The proposed Project involves the paving of Hog Lake Road, site preparation, and 

the installation of asphalt-concrete berms, downdrains, and rip-rap for the box culvert 

under the road. Only very minor road cuts and fills will be required except at the box 

culvert structure proposed at an intermittent blue line stream crossing. The culvert 

design will require a Forest Plan amendment in order to accommodate the smaller 

BIA standard design for a 25-year flood event rather than a Forest Service standard 

50-year flood event. 

Paving and re-designing of road structures will occur in such a way as to minimize 

environmental, economic, and social impacts on the surrounding area, and meet the 

requirements of NEPA. 

The great majority of paving would occur on disturbed land which is already in use as 

the existing unpaved road. Hog Lake Road has an average width of approximately 30 

feet, and the proposed paved road would be 22 feet in width with 2 foot shoulders. 

Except in the relatively small area where box culvert would be installed, no road 

widening and very minimal grading would be required. 

New easements will be granted by and to the BIA, Ramona Tribe, Forest Service, and 

the owner of APN 572-050-048, a parcel of land located between the Ramona Tribe’s 

privately held parcel of land and National Forest Land. 

The entire road within the Project area will be brought into the BIA Transportation 

System and the BIA will assume responsibility for road reconstruction, improvement, 

and maintenance. The ownership and/or stewardship of the underlying estate, 

however, would remain unchanged. 


as directed in the LMP. Design criteria/mitigation measures addressing various 



resource elements will be incorporated into proposed actions to ensure that all 

resources are protected and any potential conflicts are avoided . Site-specific 

management techniques and applicable guidance from the Forest Land Management 

Plan and Forest Service Handbook will be followed when conducting activities within 

riparian conservation areas (RCAs). 

Decision Framework 

Responsible Officials: The responsible official for BIA is Amy Dutschke, Regional 

Director, Pacific Regional Office. The responsible official for the Forest Service is 

the Regional Forester, Pacific Southwest Region. A decision will be made to 

implement the proposed action, modify the proposed action, take no action, or 

decide if preparation of an EIS is required according to applicable law, regulation 

and policy. 

Conveyance Signatories: The conveying official for BIA is Robert J. Eben, 

Superintendent for the Southern California Agency, Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Riverside, California. The conveying official for the Forest Service is the Regional 

Forester, Pacific Southwest Region.. 

Public Involvement 

On February 2, 2009, a scoping letter was sent to individuals, permit holders, 

organizations, agencies and Tribal governments who had previously shown an 

interest in the Forest route inventory or land management actions. The letter 

requested comments on the proposed action be made during the scoping period of 

February 5, 2009 to March 6, 2009. 

On February 5th, 2009, a notice was published in the Idyllwild Town Crier. The 

proposal and associated maps were listed on the Forest’s Schedule of Proposed 

Actions (SOPA) on April 1, 2009. The listing can be found on the FOREST Public 

website at http://data.ecosystemmanagement.org/nepaweb/nepa_content.php?project=28498. 

During the scoping process, four (4) comments from the public were received. 

Comments from the public and other agencies are used to formulate issues 

concerning the proposed action. An issue is a matter of public concern regarding the 

proposed action and its environmental impacts. 

No issues of importance were raised from the four comments received. 

Two comments were in full support of the project. 

Two comments were outside of the scope of this project as their main concern 

was the use of federal tax dollars, the small number of people they perceived 

would benefit (the few reservation residents) and desire to pave different roads in 

the Anza area that they perceived would benefit a greater number of people. The 



proposed project was requested by the Sovereign Nation of the Ramona Tribe 

and the RTA. It would cross Federal Forest System lands and is funded by Tribal 

government. 

One comment additionally requested information be more available in the local 

Anza publications. The project mailing list has been updated with the local 

contacts requested. 

Chapter 2 – Alternatives 

This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered for the Hog Lake 

Road Improvement Project EA. It describes both alternatives considered in detail 

and those eliminated from detailed study. The end of this chapter presents the 

alternatives in a table so that the alternatives and their environmental impacts can be 

readily compared. 

The Proposed Action Alternative 

The existing Hog Lake Road, within the Project area, will be paved and reconstructed 

with the installation of asphalt-concrete berms, downdrains, a box culvert, and rip-rap 

for the box culvert under the road. Approximately 800 lineal feet of the proposed 

improvements are located on the Ramona Reservation and 6,700 feet are on National 

Forest System lands. The paved road specifications will be: 22 feet in width with 2 foot 

shoulders, within a right-of-way width of 50 feet, except for “pop outs” for some 

drainage structures. As illustrated below in Figure 4, a 2% cross-slope section 

approach is proposed which would enable natural drainage courses and patterns to be 

maintained, as the present road is generally at cross-slopes of approximately 2%. 

Figure 4: Typical Section With 2% Road Cross-Slope 



As illustrated in Figure 5, a 10’ x 5’ double box culvert is proposed at the crossing of 

the existing road with the intermittent blue-line stream to provide all-weather access. 

This culvert is designed to BIA requirements for a 25 year flood event. The design will 

require a site specific Forest Plan amendment in order to accommodate the smaller 

BIA design, as the Forest LMP calls for culverts designed to accommodate 50 year 

events (page 19 and 20 of 33). The amendment will apply only to this area of this 

project. Only very minor road cuts and fills will be required except at the box culvert 

structure. Paving and re-designing of road structures will occur in such a way as to 

minimize environmental, economic, and social impacts on the surrounding area, and 

meet the requirements of NEPA. 

National Forest Road 6S18 (Hog Lake Road) is the only potentially year round System 

road with a direct connection from the Reservation to a dedicated year round County 

Road (Bautista) outside the Forest boundary. The great majority of paving would 

occur on encumbered land which is already in use as the existing unpaved road. Hog 

Lake Road has an average width of approximately 30 feet, and the proposed paved 

road would be 22 feet in width with 2 foot shoulders. Except in the relatively small area 

where the 10’ x 5’ double box culvert structure would be installed, no road widening 

and very minimal grading would be required. 

Figure 5: 10’ x 5’ Double Box Culvert 

New easements will be granted by and to the BIA, Ramona Tribe, Forest Service, and 

the owner of APN 572-050-048, which is a parcel of land located between the Ramona 

Tribe’s privately held parcel of land and National Forest Land. Newly created 

easements that fall within the Project area include the following (see Figure 3): 

A non-exclusive public road easement over those parts of Hog Lake Road 

passing over National Forest Land will be granted by the Forest Service to 



the BIA, on behalf of the Ramona Tribe. 


passing over private land held by the Ramona Tribe will be granted by the 

Ramona Tribe to the Forest Service, the owner of APN 572-050-048, and 

the BIA. 


passing over private land owned by the owner of APN 572-050-048 will be 

granted by the owner of APN 572-050-048 to the Ramona Tribe, the Forest 

Service and the BIA 


passing over Ramona Reservation land will be granted by the BIA, on 

behalf of the Ramona Tribe, to the Forest Service. 

The road would be brought into the BIA transportation system and the BIA would 

assume future responsibilities for road reconstruction, improvement and maintenance. 

The ownership and/or stewardship of the underlying estate, however, would remain 

unchanged. A shifting of jurisdiction of the maintenance responsibilities is not the 

same as changing underlying land ownership. No change in title is proposed. 

Generation of the easement documents will be followed by Construction Stipulations, 

Road Maintenance Agreement and Fire Plan to ensure standards in all activities are 

matters of agreement. 


as directed in the LMP 

Mitigation Measures / Design Criteria 

Mitigation measures / design criteria addressing various resource elements will be 

incorporated into proposed action to ensure that all resources are protected and any 

potential conflicts are avoided. 

Table 1: Mitigation Measures / Design Criteria 

Resource Mitigation Method / Design Criteria 

Air Quality 

Fugitive Dust 

and Exhaust 

Emissions 

During grading and earthwork activities, the following 

mitigation measures / design criteria shall be employed to 

minimize the emission of pollutants during the construction 

activities: 

AIR-1: Total construction areas disturbed by clearing, 

earthmoving, or excavation shall be minimized. 




Biological Resources 

Quino 

Checkerspot 

Butterfly 

AIR-2: Dust suppression techniques shall be employed, such 

as watering during construction activities to prevent (or 

suppress) the fine particulate from leaving the surface and 

becoming airborne through the action of mechanical 

disturbance or wind. Watering of exposed soils in traffic areas 

and covering stockpiles of sand, soil and similar materials on 

construction sites (minimum twice daily) 

AIR-3: The load of all haul trucks shall be covered; 

AIR-4: Truck speeds on unpaved surfaces shall be limited to 

15 miles per hour; 

AIR-5: Stationary and mobile equipment shall be maintained 

in proper working order, i.e., tuned for maximum efficiency 

per manufacturer’s specifications; 

AIR-6: Cleaning loose soil from construction vehicles before 

exiting the work site; and 

AIR-7: Restricting or prohibiting work on days of high winds 

(>30 mph) or when air quality is very poor. 

BIO-1: In order to compensate for the loss of 0.15 acres of 

Red Shank Chamise Chaparral, mitigation credits shall be 

purchased at no less than a 1:1 ratio at the Wilson Creek 

Mitigation Bank or other suitable (USFWS approved) bank, or 

mitigated in the Project area, on lands designated and 

approved by the USFWS. 

BIO-2: All road grading work shall be conducted outside of 

the adult Quino checkerspot butterfly flight season and the 

growth season for Quino checkerspot butterfly host plants - 

February 1 – July 31. 

BIO-3: Standard Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be 

employed to limit the release of fugitive dust. See AQ-1 

through AQ-7. 




Sensitive and 

Watch List 

Species 

A qualified biological monitor shall be present during all 

construction activities to consult on minimizing impacts and 

monitor implementation of permit conditions. The biological 

monitor will: 

BIO-4: Conduct a preconstruction walk-over to identify 

any new sensitive species within the Project impact 

area. If located, impacts will be assessed by the 

biological supervisor and recommendations made. 

BIO-5: Monitor the limits of impacts and construction 

and verify that work areas are fenced with highly 

visible fencing (e.g., orange construction fencing) to 

ensure impacts do not occur outside of the Project 

footprint. 

BIO-6: Walk around and look under machinery each 

morning to flush any wildlife. 

BIO-7: After construction is complete, the speed limit on the 

road will be set at 25 mph, and will be enforced by the 

Ramona Tribe. 

BIO-8: Road signs will be erected along the roadway asking 

motorists to stay on the road and observe the speed limit and 

educating them about the presence of sensitive and 

endangered species in the area, to reduce the potential for 

pull-offs and future habitat or sensitive plant impacts. 

BIO-9: Routine road maintenance activities shall be 

scheduled to occur between July 1 and February 1. If cases 

occur where maintenance activities are required for public 

safety, then prior to conducting any maintenance, the 

Ramona Tribe will contact the US FWS by telephone or 

email, inform them of the situation prior to conducting the 

maintenance, and follow any precautions or mitigation 

measures provided by the US FWS that would minimize 

impacts to Quino. 

BIO-1 and BIO-3 through BIO-8 Additionally: 




BIO-10: All refuse created or brought on site by construction 

personnel or contractors must be placed in covered 

containers, removed from the site daily and disposed of 

properly. 

BIO-11: The Biological Monitor shall examine the Project 

vicinity for any bird nests (tree, cavity, or ground) in which 

fledging has not occurred. If any are found during layout and 

marking or implementation, the Project biologist will evaluate 

and recommend protection measures. 

Management 

Indicator Species BIO-1, BIO-3-8, BIO-10 -11. See Above. 

Migratory Birds BIO-1, BIO-4, BIO-6, BIO-11. See Above. 

Weed Risk BIO-13: All heavy equipment used on this Project will be 

cleaned and inspected before moving into the Project area. 

This will ensure no noxious weeds will enter the Project area. 

Fire Risk 

Fire Risk 

BIO-14: All equipment will be cleaned and inspected before 

leaving the Project area to prevent the spread of existing 

weeds to new areas. 

BIO-15: All temporary staging areas shall be placed in 

unvegetated areas with compacted soils, and if adjacent to 

natural vegetation communities, shall be delineated with silt 

fencing. Staging areas will not be infested with noxious 

weeds. 

FIR-1: In order to minimize fire risk during the construction 

phase of the Project, the Fire Plan For Construction And 

Service Contracts 6-14-2006 (FSH 6309.32 and 6309.11) 

shall be implemented by the Project proponent. 

Land Use, Ownership, Easements, Traffic, and Road Maintenance 

Road 

Maintenance 

Socio-Economic and Noise Effects 

BIO-9, Additionally BMP’s will be employed including: 

BIO-13, 14, SOI-1, 2, 3, 4, and AIR-2, 5, 6, 7. 




Noise 

NOI-1: To reduce the effects of construction noise, the 

applicant shall require construction contractors to limit high 

noise-producing activities to the least noise-sensitive times of 

day and week (e.g., 7:00 am to 6:00 pm), Monday through 

Friday 

NOI-2: The applicant shall require that all construction 

contractors equip and maintain all construction equipment 

with effective muffler exhaust systems no less effective than 

those provided on the original equipment. 

NOI-3: During construction, the Project Engineer shall require 

all construction contractors to comply with all federal, state, 

county and local sound control and noise-level regulations 

and ordinances. 

NOI-4: As directed by the Project Engineer, the contractor 

shall implement appropriate additional noise mitigation 

measures including, but not limited to, changing the location 

of stationary equipment, shutting off idling equipment, 

rescheduling construction activity, notifying adjacent 

residents in advance of construction work or installing 

acoustical barriers around stationary construction noise 

sources 

Soils and Hydrology 

Soils To reduce the possibility of erosion, the applicant shall 

require construction contractors to utilize the following best 

management practices (BMPs) to prevent discharges from 

entering waters of the U.S. during construction. 

SOI-1: Erosion control and sedimentation prevention 

methods shall be utilized during the construction phase of the 

project. These will include the placement of fiber rolls, sand 

bags, rice mats, straw wattles, or similar measures. 

SOI-2: No stockpiles shall be placed within waters of the U.S. 

SOI-3: No vehicle maintenance shall be conducted within or 

adjacent to waters of the U.S. 




SOI-4: Proper use and disposal of oil, gasoline, diesel fuel, 

antifreeze and other hazardous substances shall be enforced 

by the Contractor 

Soils and Hydrology, Continued 

Hydrology HYD-1: Impacts to federal/ACOE and state/CDFG drainages 

for culverts and road crossings are covered under the 

Sections 404/401 of the Clean Water Act Permit Programs 

and the 1600 Streambed Alteration Program. In order to 

compensate for the loss of waters of the U.S., mitigation at a 

no less than 1:1 ratio within a suitable and approved 

mitigation bank, or mitigated in the Project area, on lands 

designated and approved by the ACOE and/or CDFG. 

The “No Action” Alternative 

Under the No Action alternative the RTA will take no affirmative action (there will be 

no change in the current condition of the road). The “no action” alternative would 

avoid all new impacts. The road would remain unpaved and unimproved. No new 

drainage structures will be installed. Drainage of the road at the blue line stream 

crossing would not be improved to provide all-weather road access. Road use permit 

and road maintenance issues would remain unresolved. Unsafe road conditions 

would continue to persist, and emergency vehicle access to Ramona Reservation 

would continue to be inefficient, with response times adversely affected. Poor road 

conditions would continue to adversely impact evacuation times of Ramona 

Reservation residents during emergency events such as wildfires. 



Comparison of Alternatives 

This section compares the alternatives by summarizing key differences between the 

alternatives in the following table. Chapter 3 describes the environmental 

consequences of the alternatives in detail. 

Table 2: Comparison of Alternatives 

Resource Proposed Action Alternative “No Action” Alternative 

Wildlife 

RF Sensitive 

Animals 

(20 species) 

Federally-Listed 

Animal Species 

(1 species - Quino 

Checkerspot 

butterfly) 

Management 

Indicator Species – 

Animals 

(2 species) 

Botany 

Federally-Listed 

Plant Species 

RF Sensitive Plants 

(14 species) 

Management 

Indicator Species – 

Plants 

Air Quality 

May affect individuals, but is not 

likely to result in a trend toward 

Federal listing or loss of viability 

for these species. 

Not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of the Quino 

checkerspot butterfly and is not 

likely to adversely modify its 

designated critical habitat. 

Removal of 0.15 acre of red 

shank-chamise chaparral within 

the project area will result in a very 

slight but permanent habitat loss 

for the Quino. 

No direct or indirect effects to the 

habitat factor for which each 

species was chosen. A move 

neither toward nor away from the 

desired forest condition. 

None present N/A 

May affect individuals, but is not 

likely to result in a trend toward 

Federal listing or loss of viability 

for these species. 

None present N/A 

Reduction of particulate matter 

pollution, as dust generation would 

be much less on a paved surface 

No change would be 

anticipated. 


anticipated. 


anticipated. 


anticipated. 

Vehicle emissions would 

continue at present 

levels and fugitive dust 




Hydrology/Soils 

Heritage 

than on an unpaved one. 

Improved vehicle gas mileage and 

reduction in exhaust emissions. 

Total impacts are estimated at 

4,288 sf (0.098 ac.) federal/ACOE 

and 6,429 sf (0.148 ac.) 

state/CDFG jurisdictional area. 

It is likely that sedimentation may 

be reduced over the long-term and 

erosion and hazardous material 

discharge reduced or prevented. 

No cultural resources were 

identified within the Project APE, 

so no effects to heritage 

resources. 

Human Health and Safety 

The road would be more 

accessible in all weather 

conditions. Access for emergency 

vehicles and response times 

would be improved and 

evacuation times reduced. Overall 

safety for residents and visitors 

would be improved. 

Aesthetics 

Fire fighting and prevention would 

be improved due to improved 

access to the Reservation and the 

fuel break. 

No significant impacts. Views from 

the nearest residences, the 

Cahuilla Wilderness and other 

nearby viewpoints would not be 

significantly affected. 

Land Use, Ownership, Easements 

A long-term, recordable road 

special use easement would be 

granted by the FS for the benefit 

would add to particulate 

pollution. 

Damage to road 

structure from erosion 

would be expected to 

continue at current 

levels. 

No effects to heritage 

resources. 

Safety and access would 

remain the same or 

would deteriorate over 

time due to further 

erosion damage. 

Fire risk would remain 

the same or increase as 

access to the area 

deteriorates. 

No change to the current 

visual quality of the area. 

Lacking an authorization 

for maintenance or use, 

the Tribe would be 




of the Ramona Tribe. 

subject to inconvenience, 

road closures due to 

driving conditions or 

Forest Closures (fire 

indexes, snow, etc.). 



Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences 

This chapter summarizes the physical, biological, social and economic environments 

that are affected by the proposed action and alternatives, and describes the 

expected effects on that environment from implementing the proposed action and 

alternatives. This chapter also presents the scientific and analytical basis for the 

comparison of alternatives that was outlined in Table 2: Comparison of Alternatives. 

The affected environment section under each resource topic describes the existing 

condition, or baseline, against which environmental effects were evaluated and from 

which progress toward the desired condition can be measured. Environmental 

consequences form the scientific and analytical basis for comparison of alternatives, 

including the proposed action, through compliance with standards set forth in the 

2006 San Bernardino National Forest Land Management Plan (LMP) and a 

summary of monitoring required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) and National Forest Management Act of 1976. The environmental 

consequences discussion centers on direct, indirect and cumulative effects, along 

with applicable mitigation measures. Effects can be neutral, beneficial or adverse. 

These terms are defined as follows: 

Direct effects are caused by the action and occur at the same place and time 

as the action. 

Indirect effects are caused by the action and are later in time or further 

removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. 

Cumulative effects are those that result from the incremental impact of the 

action when added to other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions. 

Cumulative Effects 

According to the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations, 

“cumulative impact” is the impact on the environment which results from the 

incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or 

person undertakes such actions (40 CFR 1508.7). 

In order to understand the contribution of past actions to the cumulative effects of the 

proposed action and alternatives, this analysis relies on current environmental 

conditions as a proxy for the impacts of past actions. This is because existing 

conditions reflect the aggregate impact of all prior human actions and natural events 

that have affected the environment and might contribute to cumulative effects. 



This cumulative effects analysis does not attempt to quantify the effects of past 

human actions by adding up all prior actions on an action-by-action basis. There are 

several reasons for not taking this approach. First, a catalog and analysis of all past 

actions would be impractical to compile and unduly costly to obtain. Current 

conditions have been impacted by innumerable actions over the last century (and 

beyond) and trying to isolate the individual actions that continue to have residual 

impacts would be nearly impossible. Second, providing the details of past actions on 

an individual basis would not be useful to predict the cumulative effects of the 

proposed action or alternatives. In fact, focusing on individual actions would be less 

accurate than looking at existing conditions, because there is limited information on 

the environmental impacts of individual past actions and one cannot reasonably 

identify each and every action over the last century that has contributed to current 

conditions. Additionally, focusing on the impacts of past human actions risks ignoring 

the important residual effects of past natural events that may contribute to 

cumulative effects just as much as human actions. By looking at current conditions, 

we are sure to capture all the residual effects of past human actions and natural 

events, regardless of which particular action or event contributed those effects. 

Third, public scoping for this Project did not identify any public interest or need for 

detailed information on individual past actions. Finally, the Council on Environmental 

Quality issued an interpretive memorandum on June 24, 2005 regarding analysis of 

past actions, which states, “agencies can conduct an adequate cumulative effects 

analysis by focusing on the current aggregate effects of past actions without delving 

into the historical details of individual past actions.” For these reasons, the analysis 

of past actions in this section is based on current environmental conditions. 

Specific plans are customized regulatory documents in lieu of standard zoning that 

are used to plan projects and delineate land uses, infrastructure, development 

standards and criteria, and implementation measures. Specific plans must address 

consistency with the jurisdiction's General Plan, and can be used to implement the 

General Plan within a limited area. The Ramona Reservation is located within the 

Riverside Extended Mountain Plan (REMAP) Area. Projects and development 

considered when determining cumulative impacts were located within the San 

Bernardino National Forest (Forest), San Jacinto Ranger District (District) and the 

Riverside Extended Mountain Area Plan (REMAP) area outlined in the Riverside 

County General Plan (RCGP) and Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan 

(MSHCP). These areas are illustrated below in Figure 6, Administrative Boundaries. 

Projects Considered When Determining Cumulative Impacts 

The following lists presents past, current and reasonably foreseeable future actions 

potentially contributing to cumulative effects. 

1. San Bernardino National Forest, San Jacinto Ranger District 

Within the District projects that are ongoing and/or will impact the District in the 

foreseeable future include Fuel reduction Projects, Grazing allotments, Forest 

Recreation Use and the designation of Wilderness areas and Wild and Scenic 



Rivers. Development or impacts associated with recreational use may include trails 

for biking, hiking and off-road vehicles, kiosk construction, camping sites and 

associated parking lot construction, among others. 

Figure 6: Administrative Boundaries 

Fuel Reduction projects on the District include the Thomas Mountain, 

Rouse North and South, Garner Valley, Bonita Vista and Baldy Projects. Fuel 



Reduction involves the reduction of excess fuel material from the area using 

hand removal, mechanical removal, broadcast burns, underburns and pile 

burns in stages over a period of several years. Fuel Reduction Management 

employing small scale burns are intended to reduce fire fuel by reducing 

overgrowth and opening areas in chaparral and scrub habitats. The Thomas 

Mountain Project supports 1,239 acres of red shank chaparral habitat within 

an area of approximately 9,900 acres. The other projects have or will impact 

a total of 850± acres of red shank chaparral. Even though there are 

immediate impacts to chaparral habitat as a result of fuels reduction projects, 

the use of localized prescribed burns are believed to improve the health of 

habitats overall and reduce the potential for large scale wildfires. The 

impacts are temporary and are expected to be beneficial to the chaparral 

habitat. Of the 1239 acres within the Thomas Mountain Project, 193 acres of 

chaparral habitat lies in the area described as 29A, which includes and 

encompasses the proposed Hog Lake Road Improvement Project. 

Grazing projects on the District include the Garner, Paradise, Rouse, and 

Wellman Allotments. These allotments comprise an existing grazing program 

on the District. The Rouse Allotment comes closest to the proposed Project 

area and is approximately one mile from the Project area at its closest. 

(Grazing is not a component of the proposed Project). Most wildlife and plant 

habitat impacts that can occur result from overgrazing, trampling and 

spreading invasive species. The Environmental Assessment for the grazing 

allotment project indicates that the impacts to wildlife and plant habitat are not 

expected to increase from the levels of the existing grazing within those 

allotments, and have decreased over time due to reduced number of head on 

the land. Grazing does not specifically remove wildlife and plant habitat, but 

can impact habitat quality. Approximately 481 acres of suitable Quino 

checkerspot butterfly occurs within the grazing lots (acres of chaparral alone 

were not specifically documented in the draft EA, but suitable habitat for the 

Quino in this area is most frequently chaparral based). The Grazing 

Allotment EA indicates that dense chaparral areas do not typically receive 

grazing use because of their density except after fire and in less sparse areas 

immediately adjacent to primary range or travel routes. Use of chaparral 

areas is expected to be very light and incidental. Grazing impacts are difficult 

to quantify as only minimum chaparral habitat is expected to be impacted. 

Recreational Use will likely increase on the San Jacinto Ranger District in a 

manner that corresponds with the population increase in the wider Riverside 

County area. Common recreational uses include: hiking, mountain biking, 

horseback riding, camping and picnicking. Of the numerous on-going and 

future forest recreation uses, the majority are centered in the Idyllwild and 

San Jacinto Peak area. Designated trails within the District are being 

maintained and created for pedestrians, bicycles, off-highway vehicles (OHV) 

and equestrian use with the intention of managing un-permitted use and 

destruction of natural habitats and creation of a smoother trail system. 

Ongoing forest management such as recreational activities, special use 



permits authorizing use or construction of facilities on the land, and fire 

suppression can affect area habitat, although the impact of past and future 

improvements are difficult to quantify. 

The recently designated Cahuilla Mountain Wilderness and the South Fork 

San Jacinto Wilderness and recently designated Wild and Scenic River, 

Bautista Creek are near the Project site. Designation of these areas will 

assure extensive natural open space and a variety of wildlife habitats will be 

preserved in the Project vicinity. A portion of the Bautista Creek comes within 

0.25 miles of the Project. 

2. Riverside County General Plan and Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan 

The Project area occurs within the REMAP area of the Riverside County General 

Plan (RCGP) (2003, revised 2008). The RCGP states that “The majority of REMAP 

lies within Rural and Open Space Foundation Components. The amount of acreage 

already under public ownership together with the constraints imposed by natural 

hazards, remoteness and lack of infrastructure, preclude significant new growth in 

the area” (RCGP). Existing development in the area is mainly rural residential with a 

variety of dwellings per acre between 2 and 20 acres. 

The REMAP area (548,555 acres) provides for 398,815 acres of open space, 88,783 

acres of rural mountain development (5-10 acre per dwelling minimum), 36,703 

acres of Indian land and a build-out population of 76,457. The plan calls for focused 

community cores and scattered rural residential communities in the planning area, 

with a minimum of commercial, industrial and public use development (1467 acres). 

The land use plan for the REMAP area is based on preserving the character of the 

community with low intensity, large lot rural residential development and maintaining 

an economy focused on tourist and recreational use. 

Conservation of habitat and species within the County is outlined in the MSHCP and 

it is tied directly to the RCGP. So that conservation areas can be coordinated within 

the County for the greatest environmental benefit and prevent loss and degradation 

of habitat. The MSHCP identifies a total of 434,950 acres of chaparral habitat within 

the MSHCP area, of which 63%, or 272,280 are proposed for conservation. 

Although acreages of chaparral within the REMAP area are not separately totaled, 

the majority of habitat in the plan area is chaparral. 

Development within the area in the future will likely either occur in consultation with 

the USFWS based on the extensive Forest Service Lands or under the Riverside 

County MSHCP, which plans for conservation in the most sensitive habitat areas. 

3. Indian Lands 

The Ramona Reservation currently supports two homes. The Tribal office is located 

off-site. Future development may include additional homes, though none are 

currently planned, and the Ramona Reservation population is not expected to 

increase substantially. 



The Ramona Tribe is in the early planning stages of developing an Eco-tourist site. 

The current plans are conceptual, but could foreseeably be completed in the next 

two to five years. The Eco-tourist site would consist of eight or more individual 

lodges and a central conference building. Several of the lodges are already 

constructed, which would minimize new development. The lodges would support 2-4 

persons. Additional day visitors could visit the Eco-Center conference building 

where Tribal members will teach people Cahuilla Culture including basketry, pottery, 

gathering, health and healing, and flora and fauna. This facility would be supplied by 

clean energy sources, solar and wind. 

Typical vehicle traffic is not expected to increase, as guests will be required to park 

off-site on private property and access to the Center will be in a vehicle driven by 

employees of the Center. 

Hiking, biking, bird watching and other outdoor activities would likely be attractions. 

Human presence would be in small, occasional groups. Guests will be directed to 

stay along the existing roads and trails when participating in outdoor activities. 

Impacts will be reduced by information and restrictions being provided to guests at 

the Center and by the placement of signs along the roadway asking visitors to stay 

on the road and educating them about the presence of sensitive and endangered 

species in an attempt to promote good stewardship and reduce future habitat or 

sensitive plant impacts. Based on the site being a center for Eco-tourism every 

effort is expected to minimize impacts to the natural environment, although 

recreational impacts are inherently difficult to quantify. 

Air Quality 

The purpose of the air quality analysis is to determine whether emissions from a 

proposed new or modified source of air pollution, in conjunction with emissions from 

existing sources, would cause or contribute to the deterioration of the air quality in 

the area. 

Direction relevant to the proposed action as it affects air resources includes the 

following: 

Federal Clean Air Act 

Regional Haze Rule (1990 Clean Air Act Amendments) 40 CFR Part 51 

General Conformity Rule (1990 Clean Air Act Amendments) (Section 176 (c) 

of the Clean Air Act (part 51, subpart W and part 93, subpart B)) 

California Clean Air Act (H&S §§ 39660 et seq.) 

South Coast Air Quality Management District Rules 

LMP Direction (Air 1 and Air 2) 



The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for pollutants considered 

harmful to public health and the environment. NAAQS include two types of air quality 

standards (40 CFR 50.1(e)). Primary standards protect public health, including the 

health of sensitive populations such as asthmatics, children, and the elderly. 

Secondary standards protect public welfare, including protection against decreased 

visibility, damage to animals, crops, vegetation, and buildings. In addition to being 

subject to the requirements of the CAA, air quality in California is also governed by 

more stringent regulations under the California Clean Air Act (CCAA). The CCAA, 

amended in 1992, requires all air districts in the State to endeavor to achieve and 

maintain State Ambient Air Quality Standards. The CCAA is administered statewide 

by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). 

The State of California has also established ambient air quality standards, known as 

the California Ambient Air Quality Standard (CAAQS) These standards are 

generally more stringent than the corresponding federal standards and incorporate 

additional standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride and visibility 

reducing particles CARB regulates mobile air pollution sources (such as motor 

vehicles) and also oversees the functions of local air pollution control districts and air 

quality management districts, which in turn administer air quality activities at the 

regional and county level The CCAA is administered by CARB at the state level and 

by the numerous Air Quality Management Districts at the regional level. 

Within the Project area, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) 

and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) have responsibility 

for preparing the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), which address federal and 

state Clean Air Act requirements. The AQMP details goals, policies, and programs 

for improving air quality and establishes thresholds for daily operation emissions. 

Environmental review of individual projects within the region must demonstrate that 

daily construction and operational emissions thresholds as established by the 

SCAQMD would not be exceeded, nor would the number or severity of existing air 

quality violations. 

Analysis Area – Spatial and Temporal Boundaries 

The Project is located within the SCAQMD. Air districts are the local authority and 

primary agency for managing pollutant emitting activities within their boundaries. As 

illustrated in Figure 7, Air Quality Management Districts, the SCAQMD extends 

across Orange County, most of Los Angeles County and the western, highly 

urbanized portions of San Bernardino and Riverside counties. 

Short-term effects are based on a 1-year duration and long-term effects are based 

on 20 years. 



Existing Condition 

California is currently divided geographically into 15 air basins and 58 counties. The 

South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) has jurisdiction over an 

area of approximately 10,743 square miles, consisting of the four-county South 

Coast Air Basin (Basin), and the Riverside County portions of the Salton Sea Air 

Basin (SSAB) and Mojave Desert Air Basin (MDAB) (SCAQMD, 2007). As illustrated 

in Figure 7, The Ramona Reservation and the Hog Lake Road Improvement Project 

site are located near the southeastern corner of the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). 

The Pacific Ocean lies to the west of the SQAWMD, and the San Gabriel, San 

Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains lie to the north and the east of the 

SCAQMD. 

The SCAQMD is home to over 16.7 million people - about half the population of the 

whole state of California. It is the second most populated urban area in the United 

States and one of the smoggiest (CARB, 2006). 

The topography and climate of Southern California combine to make the SCAB an 

area of high air pollution potential. With very light average wind speeds, the SCAB 

atmosphere has a limited capability to disperse air contaminants horizontally. The 

dominant daily wind pattern is a daytime sea breeze (onshore breeze) and a 

nighttime land breeze (offshore breeze), broken only occasionally by winter storms 

and infrequent strong Santa Ana winds from the Great Basin, Mojave, and deserts to 

the north. 

Within the SCAQMD, a majority of the pollution is derived from the nearby urban 

areas. The largest source of carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx) and 

reactive organics gases (ROG) in the SCAB are on-road motor vehicles (CARB, 

2005). Major sources of particulates (PM10 and PM2.5) include miscellaneous 

processes that include activities such as construction, dust from paved and unpaved 

roads, fugitive dust, automobiles, waste burning, fuel combustion, cooking, industrial 

processes and agricultural activities. Pollutant transport from the SCAB impacts the 

Antelope Valley, Mojave Desert, Ventura county, and San Diego county. SCAQMD 

data indicates that mobile sources represent 64 percent of VOC emissions, 92 

percent of NOx emissions, and 98 percent of CO emissions. For directly emitted 

PM2.5, mobile sources represent 39 percent of the emissions with another 20 percent 

due to vehicle-related entrained road dust. 

EPA has established NAAQS for six principal pollutants, which are called “criteria 

pollutants”: ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), particulate 

matter (PM), particulate matter 10 microns or less (PM10), particulate matter 2.5 

microns or less (PM2.5), sulfur dioxide (SO2) and lead (Pb). For some of these 

pollutants, notably O3 and PM10, the State standards are more stringent than the 

Federal standards. The State has also established ambient air quality standards for 

sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride and visibility reducing particles. The 

abovementioned pollutants are generally known as “criteria pollutants.” 



The California Air Resource Board (CARB) is required to designate areas of the 

State as: attainment, non-attainment, or unclassified for any State standard. An 

“attainment” designation for an area signifies that pollutant concentrations did not 

violate the standard for that pollutant in that area. A “non-attainment” designation 

indicates that a pollutant concentration violated the standard at least once, excluding 

those occasions when a violation was caused by an exceptional event, as defined in 

the criteria. An “unclassified” designation signifies that data do not support either an 

attainment or non-attainment status. 

According to CARB 2009 Area Designations for State Ambient Air Quality 

Standards, the Project area is located in a non-attainment area for several State 

ambient air quality standards for criteria air pollutants including ozone, particulate 

matter, and nitrogen dioxide (NO2). 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) has similarly classified air 

basins or counties based on whether those areas have met Federal Ambient Air 

Quality Standards for air pollutants including ozone (O3 – 1 hour and 8 hour 

standards), carbon monoxide (CO), fine particulate matter (PM10), nitrogen dioxide 

(NO2), lead (Pb), and sulfur dioxide (SO2). 

According to US EPA 2010 Area Designations for National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards, the Project area is located in a non-attainment area for Federal ambient 

air quality standards for ozone and particulate matter, and is designated as being in a 

“maintenance area” for nitrogen dioxide. 

Hog Lake Road is an existing residential road serving Ramona Reservation 

residents and Forest Service personnel who use the road to access National Forest 

System lands. The road terminates in a cul-de-sac on the Ramona Reservation; 

therefore, once paved the road will not provide the public through access to any 

other destination. The Ramona Reservation currently supports two homes. Tribal 

offices are located offsite. Future development may include additional homes, 

though none are currently planned and the Ramona Reservation population is not 

expected to increase substantially. Therefore, the number of vehicles using the road, 

and the number of trips per day per person are not expected to increase 

substantially due to the improvements being made to the road. 

The Ramona Tribe is in the early planning stages of developing an Eco-tourist site. 

The current plans are conceptual, but could potentially be completed in the next two 

to five years. The Eco-tourist site would consist of eight or more individual lodges 

and a central conference building. Several of the lodges are already constructed, 

which would minimize new development. The lodges would support 2-4 persons. 

Additional day visitors could visit the Eco-Center conference building where Tribal 

members will teach people Cahuilla Culture including basketry, pottery, gathering, 

health and healing, and flora and fauna. This facility would be supplied by clean 

energy sources, solar and wind. 



Figure 7: Air Quality Management Districts 



Typical vehicle traffic in the future is not expected to increase due to this future 

business endeavor of the Ramona Tribe, as guests will be required to park offsite 

on private property and access to the Center will be by electric golf-cart, or 

similar vehicle, driven by employees of the Center. 

Pollutants and Effects 

Ozone: The most persistent air quality problem in the SCAB is high ozone (O3) 

concentrations. SCAB is located in an “extreme” non-attainment area for O3. O3 is the 

principal component of smog and is formed in the atmosphere through a complex 

series of photochemical reactions involving reactive organic compounds (ROC) and 

nitrogen oxides (NOx), which are commonly referred to as precursors of O3 and are 

both considered critical in O3 formation. Motor vehicles are the major source of O3 

precursors in the air basin. During late spring, summer, and early fall, light winds, 

low mixing heights, and abundant sunshine combine to produce conditions favorable 

for maximum production of O3. The SCAB is designated as being in non-attainment 

with both the federal and State ozone standards. 

Carbon Monoxide: CO, a colorless gas, interferes with the transfer of oxygen to the 

brain. CO is emitted almost exclusively from the incomplete combustion of fossil 

fuels. Along with carbon dioxide (CO2), CO is emitted by motor vehicles, power 

plants, refineries, industrial boilers, ships, aircraft, and trains. Automobile exhausts 

release most of the CO in urban areas, CO concentrations, are influenced by local 

meteorological conditions, primarily wind speed, topography, and atmospheric 

stability. The SCAB is designated as being in attainment with both the federal and 

State carbon monoxide standards. 

Nitrogen Dioxide: NO2 is a brownish gas that irritates the lungs. It can cause 

breathing difficulties at high concentrations. Like ozone, NO2 is not directly emitted, 

but is formed by a reaction between nitric oxide (NO) and atmospheric oxygen. 

NO and NO2 are collectively referred to as nitrogen oxides (N0x) and are major 

contributors to ozone formation. NO2 also contributes to the formation of PM10 (small 

liquid and solid particles that are less than ten microns in diameter). The SCAB has 

not exceeded either federal or state standards for nitrogen dioxides in the past five 

years. It is designated as a maintenance area (an area that was once classified as 

non-attainment but has recently shown achievement of air quality standards) under 

federal standards and as an attainment area under state standards. 

Particulate Matter: Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and coarse particulate 

matter (PM10) include dust, dirt, soot, smoke and liquid droplets directly emitted into 

the air by sources such as factories, power plants, cars, construction activity, fires 

and natural windblown dust. Particles formed in the atmosphere by condensation or 

the transformation of emitted gases such as SO2 and VOCs are also considered 

particulate matter. 



Coarse particles (larger than 2.5 but smaller than 10 micrometers, or PM10) come 

from a variety of sources, including windblown dust and grinding operations. Fine 

particles (less than 2.5 micrometers, or PM2.5) often come from fuel combustion, 

power plants and diesel buses and trucks. Fine particles can also be formed in the 

atmosphere through chemical reactions. The SCAB is designated as a nonattainment 

area for both state and federal PM10. 

Sulfur Dioxide: SO2 is a colorless, pungent gas formed primarily by the combustion 

of sulfur-containing fossil fuels. SO2 irritates the respiratory tract, injures lung tissue 

when combined with fine particulate matter and reduces visibility and the level of 

sunlight. The SCAB is designated as an attainment area for both federal and state 

sulfur dioxide standards. 

Lead: Pb is a gray-white metal that is soft, malleable, and resistant to corrosion. 

Sources of lead resulting in concentrations in the air include industrial sources 

and weathering of soils, followed by fugitive dust emissions. The SCAB is 

designated as an attainment area for both federal and state lead standards. 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

For purposes of meeting Federal requirements, impact significance is related to 

Federal conformity with the U.S. EPA-approved State Implementation Plan (SIP) and 

with the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). Air quality impacts would 

be considered significant if they are expected to cause or contribute to an air quality 

violation in a non-attainment or maintenance area. However, if total direct and 

indirect project emissions fall below designated Applicability threshold levels 

established under the Conformity Rule, no adverse change in attainment status is 

expected. For purposes of meeting State requirements, Air Quality Management 

District (AQMD) thresholds of significance for project emissions serve the same 

purpose as the Federal applicability thresholds. 

No Action: 

The No Action alternative includes the continuing operation of Hog Lake Road 

without the implementation of any road improvements. This would cause no new 

adverse impacts to air quality, however there would continue to be impacts from 

vehicle emissions (ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, and sulfur dioxide), 

and the fugitive dust produced from driving on the unpaved surface would add to 

particulate pollution (PM2.5 and PM10). 

Proposed Action: 

The implementation of the Proposed Action is not expected to have any long-term 

detrimental effect on air quality. Long term, the paving of the road is expected to 

actually reduce particulate matter pollution, as dust generation by vehicles would be 

much less on a paved surface than on an unpaved one. Additionally, paving the road 

will result in less friction, which will improve vehicle gas mileage and reduce exhaust 

emissions, due to improved engine efficiency. Traffic volumes are not forecast to 

increase significantly with implementation of the proposed project and traffic 



congestion is forecast to remain the same or improve at all intersections affected by 

the proposed project 

Short-term and temporary air quality impacts would result from construction related 

activities and would include fugitive dust and exhaust emissions from construction 

equipment. The primary impact would be due to dust generated by constructionrelated 

vehicles and equipment during the paving process. Fugitive dust could be 

emitted as a result of wind erosion of exposed earth surfaces. Organic gas 

emissions would occur from construction vehicle exhaust. Because the proposed 

newly paved road would be built on an already existing unpaved road, grading 

activities would be minimal. Excavation and earthmoving are also anticipated to be 

minimal. Construction would be a relatively short duration and air-pollutant emissions 

would be dispersed relatively quickly. It is very unlikely that air quality standards 

would be approached or exceeded given the small size and short duration of the 

construction Project. 

With the linear nature of the Project any increase in emissions and/or fugitive dust 

would be continually progressing along the Project area, which would limit the time 

any one area would be exposed. 

This Project would be consistent with the federally approved State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) for the San Diego Air Pollution Control District’s Air Quality Management 

Plan. 


The No Action Alternative, along with past, present and reasonably foreseeable 

actions, would result in a lower overall air quality for the region compared to what the 

overall air quality of the region would be with the proposed project implemented. 

The Proposed Action would not be expected to lead to a significant increase of 

population on the Ramona Reservation nor result in larger visitor traffic volumes that 

would generate larger amounts of air pollutants because Hog Lake Road is a short, 

residential road primarily servicing the existing residences on the Ramona 

Reservation. Implementing the project would result in the users of Hog Lake Road 

contributing less particulate matter and vehicle emission pollution to the area. 

Conclusions 

With mitigation measures / design criteria implemented, the Project demonstrates 

conformity with the State Implementation Plan under the Federal Clean Air Act 

(CAA) and does not exceed the SCAQMD daily Project emissions significance 

thresholds for either the Proposed Action or the No Action alternatives. No adverse 

change in attainment status is expected to occur as a result of this Project. 



Aesthetics / Visual Resources 

Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan and Laws 

This section evaluates potential impacts to the aesthetic character and visual 

resources as a result of implementation of the Proposed Action or No Action 

alternatives. 

Direction relevant to the proposed action as it affects visual resources includes: 

National Forest Management Act (NFMA) The National Forest Management Act 

(NFMA) and its implementing regulations, required the inventory and evaluation of 

the forest’s visual resource, addressing the landscape’s visual attractiveness and the 

public’s visual expectations. Management prescriptions for definitive lands areas of 

the forest are to include Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIOs). 

Wilderness Areas and Wild and Scenic Rivers Two wilderness areas are within 

two miles of the Project site, the Cahuilla Mountain Wilderness and the South Fork of 

the San Jacinto Wilderness. These areas were designated to assure extensive 

natural open space and a variety of wildlife habitats will be preserved. The South 

Fork San Jacinto area is the closest in proximity, located approximately 1.1 miles to 

the northwest, and it supports similar habitat type to the proposed Project area. 

Bautista Creek has been designated a Wild and Scenic River. The portion of the 

Creek that is designated comes within 0.25 miles of the Project site and would 

provide both habitat and a wildlife corridor through the area. Impacts around the 

Creek would be restricted and subject to more critical examination. 

San Bernardino National Forest Land Management Plan The LMP contains 

Forest-wide management direction in the form of Scenic Integrity Objectives for 

visual resources and identification of “Key Places” for visual management emphasis. 

Part 2 and 3 of the LMP outlines the following landscape aesthetics and character 

management objectives and standards: 

Manage landscapes and built elements to achieve scenic integrity objectives using 

best environmental design practices to harmonize changes in the landscape and 

advance environmentally sustainable design solutions. Design management 

activities to meet the scenic integrity objectives (SIO) for the Anza “Place” which is 

“High”. 

Affected Environment 

The Project area is located in a rural setting. Visual resources in the area include 

mountains and topography, rock outcrops, trees and vegetation, as well as 

panoramic views of Anza Valley. 



Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects 

No Action: 

The No Action Alternative would result in no changes to the current visual quality of 

the Project area, and would have no direct, indirect or cumulative effect on visual 

resources, wilderness areas or view points. 


The Proposed Action alternative is not expected to significantly alter the visual 

quality of the landscape as the road already exists and is in use as an unpaved 

access road. Views from the nearest residences, the Cahuilla Wilderness and other 

nearby viewpoints would not be significantly affected. The Proposed Action is 

therefore anticipated to have a less than significant effect on visual resources. 

Biological Resources 

Species accounts are incorporated by reference from the San Bernardino National 

Forest Land Management Plan (USDA 2006). Detailed species accounts are 

available on-line at: http://www/fs.fed.us/r5/scfpr/Projects/lmp/read.htm. For 

more detailed information, including plant and animal species lists and applied 

methodology, please reference the Biological Evaluation/Assessment for Plants and 

Animals, Botany and Wildlife Report, Management Indicator Species Report, and 

Weed Risk Assessment for the Ramona Indian Reservation Access Road 

Improvement Project (the BE/BA) (L & L Environmental, Inc. 2009) which is part of 

the Project record and available upon request. 


Vegetation and Habitat 

The Proposed Action would take place entirely within an existing, regularly graded 

and cleared dirt road, with the exception of 6500 square feet (sf) (0.15 acres.) (the 

boxed culvert area). 

In general, flora in the area of the Proposed Action consists of species that occur in 

red shank-chamise chaparral, California buckwheat scrub, Interior live oak scrub 

communities, and dry washes. The Project impact area consists of an unvegetated, 

graded dirt road and 0.15 acres of red shank-chamise chaparral (the boxed culvert 

area). The Project area is surrounded by vast, open and relatively undisturbed 

habitat for these species. 



Red Shank-Chamise Chaparral 

Red shank-chamise chaparral is the dominant vegetation community in the proposed 

Project area. Red shank-chamise chaparral is a vegetation community dominated 

by red shank (Adenostoma sparsifolium) and chamise (Adenostoma fasciculatum). 

This chaparral is similar to chamise chaparral, but is typically taller (2-4 meters) and 

somewhat more open. It often grows in pure stands of redshank. Red shank 

chaparral is usually confined to granitic soils, often at higher elevations than chamise 

chaparral, and with greater precipitation and colder winters (Holland 1986). 

Dominant species observed within the proposed Project area include red shank, 

chamise, California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), and big sagebrush 

(Artemisia tridentate). The red shank-chamise chaparral onsite is relatively open 

with diverse shrub and herb layers. The herbaceous layer included several host 

plants for the Quino checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino), including white 

snapdragon (Antirrhinum coulterianum) and purple owl’s clover (Castilleja exserta). 

California Buckwheat Scrub 

California buckwheat scrub is a vegetation community dominated by California 

buckwheat. The buckwheat scrub within the proposed Project area is heavily 

disturbed and contains large areas of open ground. Dominant plants included 

matchweed (Gutierrezia californica) and California buckwheat. 

Interior Live Oak Scrub 

Interior live oak scrub is a vegetation community typically found on north-facing 

slopes and shaded ravines. This vegetation community is located along the 

easternmost portion of the proposed Project area. The species observed within the 

area included scattered interior live oak (Quercus wislizenii var. frutescens) with a 

scrub habitat understory. 

Figure 8: Vegetation Communities 

L & L Environmental, Inc. 2009 



Wildlife 

Fauna in the proposed Project area consists of species that utilize red shankchamise 

chaparral, California buckwheat scrub, Interior live oak scrub, and dry 

washes and may include species that utilize sparse individual trees in open habitat 

for nesting, roosting or perching. The Project impact area consists of an 

unvegetated, graded dirt road and 0.15 acres of red shank-chamise chaparral. The 

Project area is surrounded by vast, open and relatively undisturbed habitat for these 

species. 

A complete list of plant and animal species observed during surveys and expected to 

occur in the Project area can be found in the BE/BA (L & L Environmental, Inc. 

2009). 

Threatened, Endangered, Proposed and Candidate (TEPC) 

Species 

Species currently listed as Threatened, Endangered, Candidate, Proposed, 

Sensitive, and Watch-list species and that have the potential to occur in the southern 

San Jacinto Mountain area were considered in the BE/BA (L & L Environmental, Inc. 

2009), which is part of the Project record and available upon request. 

Federally listed plants: 

Three TEPC plant species were identified as having the potential to occur in the 

Project area: 

Slender-horned spineflower (Docecahema leptoceras) 

San Bernardino bluegrass (Poa atropurpurea) 

California dandelion (Taraxacum californicum) 

No occurrences of TEPC plants were identified in the record for the area. No 

designated or proposed critical habitat and no suitable habitat for these species 

occur within the proposed Project area. 

Federally listed animals: 

The Project area contains suitable and occupied habitat for the Quino checkerspot 

butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino). The Project area contains designated Critical 

Habitat for the Quino Checkerspot butterfly (Quino). 

Surveys for Quino were conducted in the area in 2002, 2005 and 2008. Quino were 

observed in relatively high numbers adjacent to the proposed Project in 2005 

(Mooney, Jones and Stokes, 2005). 



The Quino is a medium-sized butterfly of the brush-footed butterfly family. Preferred 

habitats consist of open spaces within coastal sage scrub, chaparral, and sparse 

native woodlands. Quino has a 4-6 week flight period from late January-early March 

and continuing as late as early May, depending on weather conditions. 

In 2008 the USFWS proposed an updated and revised critical habitat area, from that 

originally designated, based on the most recent occupation data for Quino. The 

revised critical habitat does alter critical habitat in the San Jacinto and Cahuilla area 

and now includes the central portion of the Project area. Consultation with the 

USFWS is required for projects that fall within designated critical habitat. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Opinion, dated June 9 th , 2010, 

concluded that the “proposed action is not likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of the Quino checkerspot butterfly and is not likely to adversely modify its 

designated critical habitat” based on the following reasons: 

1. The project affects a small amount of the overall range of the species. 

2. Impact minimization measures: habitat replacement, implementation outside the 

butterfly’s breeding and plant seeding season, numerous BMP’s, bio monitoring 

of construction and the speed limit of 25 mph. 

3. Only a small portion of the Bautista Unit of Quino Designated Critical Habitat will 

be subject to potential impacts and these impacts will be effectively minimized. 

4. The expected use of the road is low as it is only for Reservation access. 

USFWS anticipates the level of incidental take will not exceed 0.15 acres and this 

level of take will not result in jeopardy to the Quino Checkerspot butterfly. No 

additional reasonable or prudent measures were identified beyond those outlined in 

the Design Criteria (Table 1) that would minimize incidental take. 

Determination 

Botanical 

Based on the lack of habitat, lack of designated or proposed critical habitat and lack 

of species occurrence within the Project area, the Proposed Action would not affect 

endangered or threatened botanical species, or designated critical plant habitat. 

Wildlife 

The BE/BA (L & L Environmental, Inc. 2009), determined that the Proposed Action 

may affect and is likely to adversely affect the Quino Checkerspot butterfly. 

According to the results of the Section 7 Consultation process conducted between 

the BIA and US Fish & Wildlife Service the Proposed Action is not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of the Quino checkerspot butterfly and is not 



likely to adversely modify its designated critical habitat. A copy of the USFWS 

Biological Opinion dated June 9 th 2010 is available in the Project record. 


No Action: 

For the No Action alternative, it is expected that all direct and indirect impacts on all 

botanical and wildlife TEPC species and habitat would remain unchanged compared 

to current levels. 


For the Proposed Action alternative, the following direct and indirect effects could be 

anticipated: 

Botanical Resources 

Based on the lack of habitat, no designated or proposed critical habitat in the area 

and no documented occurrences of the species, including the previous 2005 

botanical report, no impacts are expected to TEPC botanical species as a result of 

this Project. 

Wildlife Resources 

The proposed Project may affect Quino checkerspot butterfly (Quino) and will affect 

designated critical habitat during construction. The US Fish and Wildlife service 

Biological Opinion (BO), dated June 9, 2010, determined the following potential 

effects and indicated that project design criteria would sufficiently prevent or 

minimize them. 

Direct Effects 

1. The proposed road improvement construction activities could result in mortality of 

Quino by crushing larvae. These direct effects to larvae could occur over the 0.15 

acres (0.06 hectares) of habitat subject to removal. Additionally, host and nectar 

plants may be permanently removed. 

Design Criteria: Project activities will not occur between February 1 and July 31, 

therefore no direct effects are expected to adults, pupae, eggs or host/nectar plants 

(see Table 1: Mitigation Measures/Design Criteria; Biological Resources, Bio 2). In 

the Biological Opinion, the USFWS determined that the level of anticipated take is 

not likely to result in jeopardy to the Quino. 

2. The proposed Project will remove 0.15 acres (0.06 hectares) of the 13,880 acre 

(5,618 hectare) Bautista Unit of Quino Designated Critical Habitat. Effects will occur 

to primary constituent element 1 (open areas with host plants). This effect should be 

minimal since the area of removal is small compared to the size of the unit. 



Design Criteria: Habitat replacement of 0.15 acres (0.06 hectares) of Quino habitat 

(see Table 1: Mitigation Measures/Design Criteria; Biological Resources, Bio1). 

3. Increased vehicle speeds may lead to additional mortality to butterflies due to 

vehicle strikes. Potential increase in vehicle speed may enhance the road as a 

barrier to Quino movement due to turbulence. Since the proposed Project nearly 

bisects the Bautista Unit of critical habitat, the movement of Quino could be affected 

within this Unit. 

Design Criteria: Road use is expected to be low since the road only provides access 

to and from the Ramona Indian Reservation, which only includes two homes and 

several lodges. Road use is not expected to increase due to paving. The effects of 

potential increased vehicle speeds should be minimized by a reduced and posted 

speed limit of 25 mph and educational material provided to regular road users (see 

Table 1: Mitigation Measures/Design Criteria; Biological Resources, Bio 7 and 8). 

Indirect Effects 

1. Grading of the road may increase dust in the area during implementation, which 

has the potential to negatively affect Quino host and nectar plants. 

Design Criteria: Implementation of standard BMPs will reduce fugitive dust, i.e 

watering the road and loose soil areas (see Table 1: Mitigation Measures/Design 

Criteria; Biological Resources, Bio 3). 

2. There could be potential for the introduction of non-native seeds during 

construction that may affect Quino host plants. 

Design Criteria: Standard BMPs, i.e washing equipment (see Table 1: Mitigation 

Measures/Design Criteria; Biological Resources, Bio 13 and 15). 

3. Completion of the project, i.e. covering the existing dirt with pavement, will likely 

reduce the dust associated with current (unpaved) use, which would be a benefit to 

Quino habitat adjacent to the road by improving host and nectar plant condition. 


No Action: 

For the No Action alternative, it is expected that cumulative impacts on TEPC 

species and habitat would remain unchanged. 


Any Quino habitat loss caused by the Proposed Action would add to the habitat loss 

that has already occurred in the area. 

Recent fuel reduction projects on Forest Service land in the area have resulted in the 

temporary decrease of 2088 acres of red shank-chaparral habitat through burning, 

which would have impacted the Quino in the short-term. However, fuel reduction 



projects typically improve habitat for the species over the long-term. Mitigation 

measures / design criteria were employed during that Project to avoid any 

substantial effects on host plant populations. 

Grazing, recreational activities and illegal off-road vehicle use in the area would have 

also affected Quino populations through trampling/crushing habitat or individuals and 

potential weed introduction to area habitat. 

Future development also has the potential to add to the impacts to the Quino and its 

habitat. Future development on the Ramona Reservation, although not currently 

planned, has the potential to also impact Quino and its associated habitat. Private 

Development and development of major roadways in the Project area is limited by 

natural and infrastructure constraints and is controlled by the Riverside General 

Plan. Private development in the Project area would be restricted to primarily Rural 

Community Development and would likely be subject to USFS, USFWS or MSHCP 

review and minimization measures. Existing and future private development is 

expected to impact less than 18,000 acres within the entire 548,555 acre REMAP 

area. No new major artery roadways are proposed for the area. The Riverside 

County MSHCP also has provisions dealing with the protection of Quino and its 

associated habitat. 

The ongoing impacts of on-road and off-road vehicles hitting individuals or crushing 

larvae and host plants. Although traffic over the Project road is not expected to 

increase substantially over current levels and despite speed limits and Tribal 

enforcement, speeding could still occur. Vehicle and off-road vehicle impacts could 

occur in the Project area and throughout the vicinity as several Quino populations 

have been documented, but vehicle impacts in occupied territories are difficult to 

quantify. However, the possibility of impact is reduced by the lack of a major 

freeway in the immediate area, and fewer roadways in general, due to the 

remoteness of the Project area. 

Sensitive and Watch List Species 

Fourteen Forest Sensitive and Watch-list botanical species have potential to occur in 

the Project vicinity: 

Chaparral sand verbena (Abronia villosa var. aurita) 

Johnston's rock cress (Arabis johnstonii) 

Payson's jewel-flower (Caulanthus simulans) 

Parish’s Chaenactis (Chaenactis parishii) 

California bedstraw (Galium californicum ssp. Primum) 

Beautiful hulsea (Hulsea vestita ssp. Callicarpha) 

Hall's monardella (Monardella macrantha ssp. Hallii) 

San Felipe monardella (Monardella nana ssp. Leptosiphon) 

White-margined oxytheca (Oxytheca (Sidotheca) emarginata) 

California penstemon (Penstemon californicus) 



Parish’s rupertia (Rupertia rigida) 

Southern jewel-flower (Streptanthus campestris) 

Leafy buckwheat (Eriogonum foliosum) 

Lemmon’s syntrichopappus (Syntrichopappus lemmonii) 

Twenty Sensitive and Forest Watch-List wildlife species have potential to occur in 

the Project vicinity: 

California legless lizard (Aniella pulchra) 

Coastal rosy boa (Lichanura trivirgata rosafusca) 

San Bernardino mountain kingsnake (Lampropeltis zonata parvirubra) 

Coast patch-nosed snake (Salvadora hexalepis virgultea), 

San Diego horned lizard (Phrynosoma coronatum blainvillii) 

Turkey vulture (Cathartes aura) 

Lewis' woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis) 

Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) 

Gray vireo (Vireo vicinior) 

Southern California rufous-crowned sparrow (Aimophila ruficeps canescens) 

Black-chinned sparrow (Spizella atrogularis) 

Bell's sage sparrow (Amphispiza belli belli) 

Lawrence's goldfinch (Carduelis lawrencei) 

Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii) 

Golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) 

San Diego pocket mouse (Chaetodipus fallax fallax) 

San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus bennettii) 

Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) 

California leaf-nosed bat (Macrotus californicus) and 

Pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), 


No Action: 

For the No Action alternative, there would be no anticipated direct or indirect impacts 

beyond the current condition that would affect Sensitive or Watch-list species in the 

area. Any existing negative impacts from dust due to road use would continue. 


For the Proposed Action alternative, the following direct and indirect effects would be 

expected: 

Botanical Species 

Fourteen Sensitive and/or Watch-list botanical species have suitable habitat on the 



Project site. While no recent occurrences of these plants were documented within 

the Project area during plant surveys conducted in 2005 or 2008, there is a chance 

that unobserved or new growth could be present at the time of construction. 

Mitigation measures/design criteria will be implemented to reduce the chances of 

any direct impacts to these plants (see Table 1: Mitigation Measures/Design Criteria; 

Biological Resources). 

Indirect impacts to sensitive botanical species could occur as a result of chemical 

emissions, fugitive dust, human presence, and invasive species. Increases of 

chemical emissions and fugitive dust during construction would be temporary and 

due to the linear nature of the Project would be continually progressing along the 

Project area, which would limit the time any one area would be exposed. Release of 

chemical emissions from vehicles would increase during construction, however due 

to the remote location, open area and overall minimal traffic, emissions should 

disperse. Impacts of chemical emissions after construction are not expected to 

increase substantially over current levels. The road is not a through road and would 

still only be utilized by the small number of residents and guests of the Reservation. 

Fugitive dust rates could increase during construction, but would be significantly 

reduced from the existing levels over the long-term by the paving of this access 

road. Mitigation measures/design criteria will be incorporated to minimize indirect 

impacts to the extent possible during construction (see Table 1: Mitigation 

Measures/Design Criteria; Biological Resources). The reduction in dust disturbance 

resulting from the paving of the current dirt road is considered a positive effect for 

species in the area. 

A potential increase in non-native plant species would likely only occur along the 

perimeter 0.15 acre impact area, but could also occur along the road edges. The 

limited impact area and hardscape within the impact area would limit the potential 

areas for invasive species to take hold. Invasive and noxious weed species seed 

could be spread or introduced into the area by construction equipment or normal 

traffic. Mitigation measures/design criteria will be employed to reduce the spread of 

noxious and non-native species (see Table 1: Mitigation Measures/Design Criteria; 

Biological Resources). 

Wildlife Species 

California Spotted Owl 

No direct effects are expected. The proposed impact area and immediately adjacent 

lands do not support any suitable forest habitat typical to this species for nesting or 

roosting. The Project area is within the range of an historic, currently unoccupied 

California spotted owl territory. If occupied, the Project area could be utilized for 

foraging. Indirect effects could include avoidance of foraging in the area due to 

construction noise and disturbance and/or reduction in prey due to direct or indirect 

impacts to general small mammal species. With the wide territories of the California 



spotted owl, and the vast, open and relatively undisturbed habitat in the Project area, 

these effects would be insignificant. 

Birds 

No direct effects are expected to nesting birds due to timing of the proposed action 

(see Table 1: Mitigation Measures/Design Criteria; Biological Resources). Indirect 

impacts to foraging birds may include avoidance or abandonment of the area, over 

the short-term. Those species that may use the Project area for foraging will still 

have access to large expanses of relatively undisturbed habitat in the Project area. 

Foraging habitat will not be substantially reduced with the implementation of the 

Proposed Action. 

Large mammal and bat species 

No direct effects are expected. There is a slight possibility of vehicle impacts, 

however given the wide territories of these species, vast open habitat in this area, no 

access restrictions around the roadway, no observed denning or roosting habitat in 

the impact area, the nocturnal habits of these species and the high visibility of the 

mountain lion, the possibility is minimal. Potential indirect effects during construction 

include noise, emissions, human presence and vibrations. With the vast range of the 

mountain lion and bat species, and the fact that mountain lions and bat species are 

nocturnal and mountain lions are primarily solitary, these effects would be 

considered insignificant. The proposed action will result in an insignificant amount of 

additional habitat fragmentation, consisting of the loss of 0.15 acre of chaparral. 

Given this small size, it is not a significant change beyond the current condition. 

Terrestrial species 

Direct effects may include being impacted by construction activities or as a result of 

the road improvements. The noise, activity and presence of humans on the worksite 

will likely discourage wildlife from the site during working hours, but they may take 

refuge around the equipment in off hours. These species, if present, could be 

injured or killed by construction equipment or vehicles. After completion of 

construction, vehicle impacts are not expected to substantially increase over current 

conditions. Increased direct effects could result from three main factors; increased 

speed, road maintenance and the preference of some reptiles to sun on paved 

surfaces. Mitigation measures/design criteria will be employed to reduce the chance 

of vehicle impacts with small mammals (see Table 1: Mitigation Measures/Design 

Criteria; Biological Resources). 

Noise and emission levels should be similar to current conditions after construction, 

as additional traffic levels are not expected, but periodic maintenance will occur. It 

is even likely that vibrations from road traffic would decrease after the road is paved, 

providing a smoother straighter surface and with the speed limit posted at 25 mph. 

The reduction in vibrations resulting from the paving of the current dirt road might be 

considered a positive outcome. 



Increases in invasive plant species could affect the diet of small herbivore, mammal 

species by displacing their primary food sources. Mitigation measures/design 

criteria will be employed to reduce the risk of invasive plant species (see Table 1: 

Mitigation Measures/Design Criteria; Biological Resources). Large areas of 

undisturbed vegetation occur in the Project vicinity and would be available food 

sources for these species. 

All wildlife species 

All wildlife species in the area may experience indirect effects from road 

construction. Increases in noise, chemical emissions and vibration could result in 

avoidance or abandonment of the area, over the short-term. With linear nature of 

the Project any increase in noise, emissions and/or vibrations would be continually 

progressing along the Project area, which would limit the time any one area would 

be exposed. Due to the remote location, open area and overall minimal traffic 

emissions should disperse. Although some species or individuals may alter 

behavior, mitigation measures/design criteria that restrict construction during spring 

and summer will reduce impacts to all wildlife during typical reproduction periods. 

With incorporated mitigations (see Table 1: Mitigation Measures/Design Criteria; 

Biological Resources), the short-term period of construction, periodic maintenance 

and the presence of substantial quality habitat nearby, the Project vicinity can 

provide sufficient foraging and nesting habitat thus indirect effects to wildlife would 

be temporary and minimal. 

Determination 

R5 Sensitive Plants: The proposed Project activities may adversely affect individual 

Sensitive Plants, but are not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of 

viability. 

R5 Sensitive Wildlife Species: The Project may affect individuals, but is not likely 

to result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability for these species. 


No Action and Proposed Action 

Cumulative effects on Sensitive and Watch-list Species are similar to those listed in 

the cumulative effects for Quino checkerspot butterfly for both the No Action 

alternative and Proposed Action. 

The Proposed Action would add 0.15 acres to the cumulative loss of red shank 

chaparral habitat in the area. Given this small size, the proposed action’s 

contribution to cumulative effects is not significant. 



Although there is some potential for Sensitive and Watch-list species to be impacted 

by the Proposed Action and isolated impacts cannot be ruled out, no additional 

measurable cumulative impacts to these species are expected. 

Management Indicator Species 

For more detailed information, including plant and animal species lists and applied 

methodology, please reference the BE/BA (L & L Environmental, Inc. 2009) which is 

part of the Project record and available upon request. 

USFS Management Indicator Species (MIS) are identified in the 2006 San 

Bernardino Land Management Plan (LMP). Species were selected because their 

population OR habitat trends are believed to indicate the effects of management 

activities, and they are a focus for monitoring of those activities. 

Botany MIS 

None of the management indicator plant species are present within or adjacent to 

the proposed Project area; since none are present there will be no impact to MIS 

species. 

Wildlife MIS 

There are two MIS species that may occur in the Project area: mountain lion and 

mule deer. Although both species could be directly impacted by traffic and 

construction could impact them temporarily, the Project would not significantly 

change the habitat factor for which each species was chosen: habitat fragmentation 

and healthy diverse habitats, respectively. Implementation of the Proposed Action 

would be a move neither toward nor away from the desired condition. 

Migratory Birds 

For more detailed information please reference the BE/BA (L & L Environmental, Inc. 

2009) which is part of the Project record and available upon request. 


Migratory Birds include common, sensitive and listed species. Impacts to migratory 

birds (other than those species specifically addressed elsewhere in this document) 

under this rule are limited to nesting. Habitat types utilized by migratory birds within 

the Project vicinity could include the interior live oak scrub and chaparral. The 

interior live oak habitat consists of only a few scattered trees with a scrub 

understory. The trees could be used for nesting by migratory birds and raptors. 

Species that nest in chaparral could also occur in the Project vicinity. 




No Action: 

For the No Action alternative, there would be no anticipated direct or indirect impacts 

beyond the current condition that would affect Migratory Bird species in the area. 

Any existing negative impacts from dust due to road use would continue. 


Construction could result in abandonment of active nests/dens and the losses of 

existing eggs, and off-spring. Nests on the ground or in trees/bushes within the 0.15 

acre of habitat impacts could be destroyed. Nests are not expected in the active 

roadway. 

Disturbances may result in abandonment of areas and disruption of courtship 

behaviors resulting in failure to reproduce. Design Criteria are incorporated to 

reduce impacts to nesting and breeding species. No construction will occur between 

February 1 and July 31 thereby impacts to nesting bird species (see Table 1: 

Mitigation Measures/Design Criteria; Biological Resources). 

Other direct, indirect and cumulative effects and the applicable mitigations would be 

similar as the previously discussed birds and ground dwelling species (see Sensitive 

and Watch-list Species discussion above). 

General Vegetation and Wildlife 

For more detailed information, including plant and animal species lists and applied 

methodology, please reference the BE/BA (L & L Environmental, Inc. 2009) which is 

part of the Project record and available upon request. 

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects 

Effects to general vegetation and wildlife are similar to those effects previously 

discussed for Sensitive and Watch-list species (see above). Incorporated design 

features and mitigation measures will suffice to minimize effects on all species. 

Weed Risk 

Forest Service Manual 2080 Noxious Weed Management (effective since 11/29/95) 

states a risk assessment for noxious weeds must be completed for every project. 

For more detailed information, please reference the Weed Risk Assessment portion 

of the BE/BA (L & L Environmental, Inc. 2009) which is part of the Project record and 

available upon request. 



The Project area has no Federal or State listed noxious weeds, but has low levels of 

invasive weed species. The weeds are concentrated along road shoulder. The 

primary concern is to keep the current populations of weedy species from spreading 

both within and beyond the Project area. 

The dominant vegetation type occurring in the Project area is red shank chaparral, 

which becomes susceptible to weed invasions after disturbance. The effects of 

disturbance associated with roads and drainage structure construction will be 

reduced by implementing mitigation measures/design criteria (see Table 1: 

Mitigation Measures/Design Criteria; Weed Risk). 

Determination 

The weed risk for pathways of introduction is Low based on the minimal impacts in 

construction and the Design Criteria for the Project which will limit the movement of 

invasive plants. 

Heritage Resources 

A series of policies, laws and regulations govern the preservation of our past in the 

United States. The most important of these is the National Historic Preservation Act 

(NHPA). This law and its implementing regulations, 36 CFR Part 800, recognize that 

historic properties significant to the Nation’s heritage are being lost and that the 

cultural foundations of the Nation should be preserved as a living part of our 

community life and development in order to give a sense of orientation to the 

American people (16 U.S.C. 470 (1)(b)(2-3)). In 1980 the NHPA was amended, and 

Section 110 was added to expand and underscore Federal agency responsibility for 

identifying and protecting historic properties and avoiding unnecessary damage to 

them. This Act specifies a set of criteria to be used for designating historic properties 

(e.g., districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects etc.) as significant. Significant 

properties are eligible to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Section 

106 of the NHPA compels federal agencies to take into account the effect of its 

undertakings on any district, site, building, structure or object that is included in or 

eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (36 CFR 60) (Historic 

Properties). 




Federal laws providing for the protection and preservation of archaeological and 

historic sites, or require the identification and evaluation of important historic 

properties and the consideration of the effects of federal agency activities and 

programs on significant historic properties as part of land management decisions 

include: 

Antiquities Act of 1906 (34 Stat. 225; 16 U.S.C. 431-433) 

Historic Sites Act of 1935 (49 Stat. 666; 16 U.S.C. 461- 467) 

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (80 Stat. 915 et seq.; 

16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) (NHPA) 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (83 Stat. 852 

et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347) 

Archaeological and Historical Data Preservation Act of 1974 (88 Stat. 174; 16 

U.S.C. 469) 

American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 (92 Stat. 469; 42 U.S.C. 

1996) 

The Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, as amended (ARPA) 

(93 Stat. 721 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and 

The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (104 

Stat. 3048-3058; 25 U.S.C. 3001-3013). 

Presidential Executive Orders addressing specific issues affecting properties, 

locations or resources of importance to American Indian tribes include: 

Executive Order 11593 entitled Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural 

Environment, 

Executive Order 13007 entitled Indian Sacred Sites and Executive Order 

13175 entitled Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments. 

The Forest Service has also developed specific policy for complying with Section 

106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), direction for the management 

of heritage resources can be found the Forest Service Manual (FSM 2360). 

Region 5 of the Forest Service has also developed specific procedures to meet the 

requirements of NHPA Section 106 (36 CFR 800). Forests in Region 5 can comply 

with the region’s Motorized Recreation Programmatic Agreement, entitled 

Programmatic Agreement among the USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest 

Region, USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Region’s Humboldt-Toiyabe National 

Forest, California State Historic Preservation Officer and Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation Regarding the Process for Compliance with Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act for Designating Motor Vehicle Routes and 

Managing Motorized Recreation on the National Forests in California (Motorized 

Recreation PA) (2006). 



Effects Analysis Methodology 

A records search and cultural resources survey was conducted by Tierra 

Environmental Services (Tierra Environmental Services, 2002). 

The archival research consisted of the review of records searches of the Project 

area conducted by the Eastern Information Center (EIC) located at the University of 

California, Riverside. A records search was initially conducted of the entire Ramona 

Reservation and surrounding 1-mile radius on August 30, 2001. 

A supplemental records search was conducted of the southwestern most portion of 

the road area of potential effect (APE) and surrounding 1-mile radius on March 21, 

2002. Historic maps were also examined. This information was used to identify 

previously recorded resources and determine the types of resources that might 

occur in the survey area. 

Section 106 San Bernardino National Forest Heritage Resources Programmatic 

Agreement Certification was provided by the San Jacinto Ranger District on March 

30, 2010. The APE was determined to have been previously reviewed and it was 

determined adequate for the purpose of historic property identification or Stipulation 

III(B)(5) of the 2001 Programmatic Agreement for Compliance wit Section 106 of the 

NHPA for undertakings on the National Forests of the Pacific Southwest Region 

(PA). Under Stipulation III(D)(1), no historic properties were identified on the subject 

undertaking APE, and it was determined that the Proposed Action could be 

implemented without management measures. 


On April 7, 2002 the road alignment was surveyed by Tierra Environment Services 

using one transect along each side of the road. These transects resulted in a survey 

coverage of the area with less than a five meter interval. The APE has a total width 

of 100 feet (measured as 50 feet from each side of the road’s centerline). 


No cultural resources were identified within the Project APE. Based on the results of 

previous surveys in the area and the 2002 survey, it was determined that no cultural 

resources would be expected to be affected by the Proposed Action, and that no 

further cultural resources work was required. If, however, prehistoric or historic 

remains are discovered during construction, all activities would cease and the district 

archaeologist would be contacted immediately. 

If the No Action alternative were implemented, no direct or indirect effects to cultural 

resources would be expected. 




As there are no cultural resources within the Project APE, the Proposed Action 

would not be expected to contribute to cumulative effects to cultural resources in the 

area. 

Determination 

The Section 106 Certification, dated March 30, 2010 determined that the Proposed 

Action would have No Effect on cultural resources. 

Rationale for Determination: 

Record searches did not reveal any prior findings within the Project APE (50 feet 

from center line). 

No cultural resources were found within the Project APE. 

Fire Risk 


The existing access road is presently a local, unpaved road which is in deteriorated 

condition. Heavy rain, ice or snow on the road in the winter often prevent access to 

the Ramona Reservation, as poor weather makes the already poor road conditions 

even more treacherous. Because Hog Lake Road provides the only means of 

vehicle ingress and egress for the Ramona Tribe, the deteriorated road conditions 

are of particular concern during times when rapid evacuation is required. 

A stated priority of the LMP is community protection from wildfires. The Ramona 

Reservation is in a region which has historically been at high risk for wildfires. 

Fire prevention and other emergency vehicle response to the Ramona Reservation 

are presently slowed due to poor road conditions and a lack of signage. It is often 

difficult for emergency personnel to navigate their way around the Ramona 

Reservation. 


No Action: 

For the No Action alternative, the risk to public safety would persist, access and 

response time for wildfires by emergency vehicles would continue to be slowed, and 

the Ramona Tribe’s only means of vehicle ingress and egress would continue to be 

a primary factor impairing efficient evacuation efforts during times of emergency or 

disaster. 




For the Proposed Action, public safety for those traveling on Hog Lake Road will be 

improved. Emergency and wildfire vehicle access and response times will be 

improved. The road will be all-weather accessible, navigation will be made easier for 

emergency vehicle personnel, and the road will be better able to accommodate 

larger, less easily maneuverable vehicles such as fire fighting vehicles. During times 

of emergency or disaster, evacuation will be made safer and more efficient for 

Ramona Reservation residents. All construction and maintenance equipment will be 

maintained according to BMP’s and have all required spark arrestors and fire 

suppression equipment as delineated in the Fire Plan. These measures will minimize 

the potential for fire starts from project implementation or maintenance. After 

construction, there would not be any additional fire risk to area due to 

implementation of the Proposed Action. 


No Action: 

Under the No Action alternative, the risk to public safety from fire would persist at 

current levels or increase. Other projects in the area have reduced fire risk, such as 

the various fuel reduction projects, and the continued access and safety problems of 

Hog Lake Road would reduce the effectiveness and benefits of those other projects. 

Under the No Action alternative response times for wildfires by emergency vehicles 

in the area would continue to be slow and the Ramona Reservation residents and 

other road users would continue to be at great risk during times of emergency, as 

the sole means of vehicle ingress and egress would continue to deteriorate. 


Under the Proposed Action better all-weather access will add to increased fire safety 

in the area and will add to the fire-risk reduction benefits imparted by the fuel 

reduction projects in the area. Emergency and wildfire vehicle access and response 

times and all-weather reliability will be tremendously improved. Navigation will be 

made easier for emergency vehicle personnel, and the road will be better able to 

accommodate larger, less easily maneuverable vehicles such as fire fighting 

vehicles, and this will benefit the entire area as fire-fighting vehicles may be able to 

access any wildfires starting in the area sooner. During times of emergency or 

disaster, the paved road will provide a reliable, safe evacuation route for all users of 

the road. 



Land Use, Ownership, Easements, Traffic, and Road 

Maintenance 


Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 251, Subpart B (36 CFR part 251, 

subpart B) is the principal authority for screening special use proposals, filing and 

processing special use applications, and preparing authorizations. 

Federal Land Policy and Management Act (PLPMA) of October 21, 1976 (90 Stat. 

2743, as amended; 43 U.S.C. 1701) is the primary authority for the Forest Service to 

acquire and grant easements. A Section of the act authorizes the Secretary of 

Agriculture to acquire access (lands or interest therein) over non-Federal lands to 

units of the National Forest System by exchange [of land or rights in land]. 

Title 36, Code of federal Regulations, Part 251, Subpart B Section 251.63 addresses 

reciprocity. 

The Department of the Interior regulations in Title 25, Code of Federal Regulations, 

Part 169 (36 CFR 169). This part contains requirements for easements on Indian 

lands. 


As illustrated in Figure 3, Land Ownership and Proposed Easements, the Proposed 

Action begins where Hog Lake Road crosses National Forest System lands, just 

north of Wheat Road, and continues along Hog Lake Road (aka NFR 6S18) through 

National Forest System land, and ends inside the Ramona Reservation near the 

intersection with Table Mountain Road (AKA Forest Service Road 6S20). 

There are two privately owned parcels between Bautista Road and Wheat Road and 

the National Forest Boundary. The parcel at the southwest end of the project has 

been purchased by the Ramona Tribe (APN 572-050-047). The parcel between it 

and the National Forest boundary (APN 572-050-048) is owned by another 

individual. The travel route crossing the private land is not recognized in the County 

Transportation System. Neither the Forest Service nor the BIA has a recorded 

easement across the private lands, the Reservation or Forest lands, respectively. As 

part of this Proposed Action, land use easements are being requested to be 

recorded across the private land. The Proposed Action would enable the Forest 

Service to grant a special use easement to the BIA over the NFR 6S18 alignment 

and approve reconstruction plans for a paved and properly drained roadbed. 

Wheat Road runs in an east/west direction south of the National Forest Boundary 

separating the private parcels from National Forest Service (NFS) land. The road 

appears to be unused and is in very poor condition. However it is in the County Road 



System. Hog Lake Road crosses Wheat Road and enters Forest lands. Hog Lake 

Road is “a classified Forest Road and necessary for the protection, administration, 

and utilization of the National Forest System lands and the use and development of 

its resources.” Since it is classified any change to its “as built” condition would 

require construction stipulations in addition to a special use easement. Hog Lake 

road continues to the Ramona Reservation’s west boundary and continues into the 

Ramona Reservation. The Proposed Action terminates inside the Ramona 

Reservation at the intersection of a road leading out towards Hog Lake. 

A variety of land uses are permitted on National Forest System lands, including 

timber harvesting, road construction, horseback riding, camping, and other 

recreational activities. 

As illustrated in Figure 9, Land Use, land use on and around the Project site includes 

shrub and brush rangeland, cropland and pasture, and mixed rangeland. Inside the 

Ramona Reservation boundary there are a number of unoccupied building structures 

located near Hog Lake near the northern terminus of the Project site. 

Land uses to the south of the Ramona Reservation in the Anza-Terwilliger valleys 

are primarily rural residential and agricultural, with apple, potato, grain and pasture 

agricultural operations. 

There are no Federal Communications Commission (FCC) or Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) sites located in the vicinity of the Project area. 

Hog Lake Road provides access to National Forest System lands and Ramona 

Reservation access to Tribal members of the Ramona Tribe. There are presently 3 

houses on the Ramona Reservation and the number of trips per day along the road 

is relatively low. Road improvements will terminate on the Ramona Reservation near 

the intersection of Table Mountain Road, and will not provide an attractive means of 

through access to other destinations for the general public, and the improved road 

will therefore be unlikely to attract significantly increased traffic volume. Plans for a 

future ecotourism enterprise by the Ramona Tribe would also be unlikely to 

significantly increase traffic volumes as all visitors will be directed to park offsite and 

would be taken via electric vehicle up and down Hog Lake Road to and from the 

Ramona Reservation. 

Road maintenance such as the filling of potholes will be provided by the Ramona 

Tribe on a periodic basis based on site evaluations. Road drainage features will be 

checked by the Tribe before and after major storms and maintenance and repairs 

performed as required to keep the drainage features functional. Additional 

maintenance will be performed by the Ramona Tribe as needed to perform repairs to 

the road asphalt berms, paved surface, signage, concrete features, and road striping 

and pavement markings. Any scheduled maintenance of the road will occur outside 

of the time period between February 1 st to July 31 st - the Quino checkerspot butterfly 



Figure 9: Land Use 

flight season and the growth season for Quino checkerspot butterfly host plants. If 

immediate road repairs need to be completed within this time period (due to storm 

damage, etc.), the Ramona Tribe will contact Fish & Wildlife Service, by email or 

telephone, prior to performing the repairs, in order to obtain preventative measures 

that must be taken to reduce or eliminate risk to Quino when the repairs are 

performed. 

Transportation Facility Jurisdiction is the legal right to control or regulate use of a 

transportation facility derived from an easement. While jurisdiction requires authority, 

it does not necessarily reflect ownership. The BIA (and therefore the Ramona Tribe) 

would gain jurisdiction of Hog Lake Road, which provides legal ingress and egress to 

the Ramona Reservation. 



Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects 

No Action: 

Under the No Action alternative there would be no granting of easements. Road 

maintenance issues would remain unresolved. Lacking an authorization for 

maintenance or use, the Ramona Tribe would be subject to inconvenience, road 

closures due to driving conditions or Forest Closures (due to fire indexes, snow, 

etc.). 


Under the Proposed Action, easement and maintenance issues would be resolved. 

An easement for an already existing road has the effect of turning over jurisdiction of 

the road to the proposing public road agency. 

The Proposed Action would not cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in 

relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a 

substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio 

on roads, or congestion at intersections). The Proposed Action would not cause a 

change to traffic patterns. Travel on Hog Lake Road will become safer as a result of 

implementing the Proposed Action. The road width will be uniform, lines of sight 

enhanced, striping and signage added, and the road structure and drainage 

improved. Emergency vehicle access will be greatly improved as a result of 

implementing the Proposed Action. 

No negative impacts to traffic and circulation are anticipated from the Proposed 

Action long term. However, during construction there may be some delays. The 

proposed action does not physically divide an established community, or conflict with 

any applicable plans or policy. The Project would not impact any existing 

recreational activities or facilities. The Proposed Action would not increase the use of 

an existing neighborhood, regional park, or recreational facility such that substantial 

physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. 

Socio-economic and Noise Effects 

The social and economic effects are the direct and indirect impacts of the Proposed 

Action or No Action alternatives on the residents of the Project area. 


Hog Lake Road is presently an unpaved road providing the only means of vehicle 

access to the Ramona Reservation. The road has structural problems caused by 

erosion and improper drainage. Lines of sight are insufficient, presenting safety 

concerns. The width of the road is variable and inconsistent, and not up to Forest 



Service standards. Heavy rain, ice or snow on the road in the winter often prevents 

access to the Ramona Reservation, as poor weather makes the already poor road 

conditions even more treacherous. Emergency vehicle access to the Ramona 

Reservation is presently slowed due to poor road conditions and a lack of signage. It 

is often difficult for emergency personnel to navigate their way to the Ramona 

Reservation. 

The Forest Service has previously granted the Ramona Tribe a road use permit for 

Hog Lake Road; however, this easement has now expired. There is no active road 

maintenance agreement for this road. The proposed Project would rectify these 

issues. An easement would be granted to the Ramona Tribe by the Forest Service. 

The road would be brought into the BIA system, and responsibility for future road 

maintenance would be resolved. 

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects 

No Action: 

For the No Action alternative, none of the safety concerns presented by the existing 

road conditions would be addressed. Access to the Reservation would continue to 

be difficult and dangerous in poor weather conditions. Emergency vehicle response 

times and evacuation time for residents and visitors on the reservation would 

continue to be slowed. Erosion damage to the road would continue as a result of 

improper drainage of the road continuing. No right-of-way, easement, or road 

maintenance issues would be resolved. Noise levels would remain at the same 

levels as at present. 


The paved route provided by the Proposed Action will facilitate safer, easier access 

to the Ramona Reservation for residents and Tribal members, and provide improved 

emergency vehicle response time. The installation of striping and signage will 

increase road safety and better navigation. Repair of structural deficiencies and 

improved drainage structures will prevent road erosion. Lines of sight will be 

improved. In short, a road reconstructed, improved and frequently maintained will be 

much safer for residents and visitors, and allow for better and more reliable allseason 

access. The proposed Project will, through issuance of reciprocal 

easements, create efficiencies in road maintenance and management. 

Construction of the Proposed Action would temporarily increase noise levels and 

may cause ground borne vibrations or noise due to construction equipment. These 

temporary construction noise impacts would be reduced to a less than significant 

level through implementation of mitigation measures / design criteria. 

The Proposed Action would also provide an economic benefit to the Ramona Tribe 

as a paved road would reduce vehicle wear, tear and damage and the associated 

maintenance and repair costs, as well as the likelihood of road impassibility due to 

poor weather and the subsequent loss of work and wages. Additionally it would 

better allow for the future development of Tribal enterprises. 



Soil and Hydrology 

Statutes, Regulations, Forest Plan and Other Direction 

Direction relevant to the proposed action as it affects hydrologic resources includes: 

San Bernardino National Forest Land Management Plan 

The Forest was established to protect the watersheds that influence runoff and 

supply water to local communities and municipalities. The Soil and Watershed 

Program cooperates with various water agencies and other national forest functional 

areas to reduce erosion and maintain high quality water for various users and natural 

resources through application of Best Management Practices in all Forest Service 

activities (WAT 1 – Watershed Function) (LMP, Part 2, pg. 27, pg.136). 

Forest Service Handbook (FSH), (supplemental to the LMP) 2509.22 Chapter 3.21 – 

Stream Protection Measures General to all management activities: 1. All applicable 

best management practices (BMPs) (USDA forest service 2000) should be identified 

and followed in all ground disturbing forest management actions, including all 

contracts, operating plans, and work orders. Chapter 3.30 - Road Construction and 

Maintenance: 4. New culverts, bridges and other stream crossing structures should 

be designed to accommodate at least a 50-year flood event, including associated 

bed load and debris movement (page 19 and 20 of 33). 

Appendix D of the LMP – Adaptive Mitigation for Recreation Uses lists actions and 

practices for all existing and new recreation sites and uses whenever a conflict 

between uses or sensitive resources is detected. Sensitive resources include 

riparian habitats, soils and watersheds. 

Appendix E of the LMP – Five-Step Project Screening Process for Riparian 

Conservation Areas provides direction to ensure riparian conservation areas (RCAs) 

are recognized, emphasized and managed appropriately during new project planning 

and implementation. 



Forest Service Manual Direction 

Region 5 Supplement 2500-92-2 to FSM 2526 discusses riparian area management 

and is further defined by The San Bernardino Supplement to 2509.22 – Soil and 

Water Conservation Practices Handbook, FSH 2509.22-2005-1. 

Region 5 Supplement 2500-93-1 to FSM 2530 gives guidance on water quality 

management and the application of Best Management Practices (BMP). Section 

2532.03 states “it is the policy of Region 5 that water quality management on 

National Forest System lands in California shall be conducted within the guidelines 

and procedures set forth in R-5 FSH 2509.22 Soil and Water 

Conservation Handbook and in accordance with the Management Agency 

Agreement executed in 1981 between the Forest Service and State Water 

Resources Control Board”. 

2560 and 2880 Groundwater Resources Management Draft direction 

EO 11988 and 11990, Floodplain and Wetland Protection - Floodplain and wetland 

delineation will occur as part of this analysis. Floodplain and wetland protection 

BMPs will be integrated into project design. Floodplain and wetland guidance is also 

found in 2509.22-2005-1 sec 2.3. 

Clean Water Act of 1948 (as amended in 1972 and 1987) - The Clean Water Act of 

1948 (as amended in 1972 and 1987) establishes as federal policy the control of 

point and non-point pollution and assigns the States the primary responsibility for 

control of water pollution. Compliance with the Clean Water Act by National Forests 

in California is achieved under State Law (The California Water Code, including the 

Porter-Cologne Water-Quality Act (as amended in 2006)). 

The state of California, in accordance with EPA and as required by the Clean Water 

Act (CWA), Section 303(1) (A), has identified water bodies impaired by specific 

pollutants. Impaired water bodies may not fully support their designated beneficial 

uses and are placed on the State 303(d) list for further study or development of a 

TMDL plan for the pollutant deemed to be impairing use. 

Water Quality Management for Forest Service System Lands in California, 2000 - 

Non-point source pollution on national forests is managed through the Regional 

Water Quality Management Plan (USDA Forest Service 2000), which relies on 

implementation of BMPs. 

The California Water Code consists of a comprehensive body of law that 

incorporates all state laws related to water, including water rights, water 

developments and water quality. The laws related to water quality (sections 13000 to 

13485) apply to waters on the national forests and are directed at protecting the 

beneficial uses of water. Of particular relevance for the proposed action is section 

13369, which deals with non point-source pollution and BMPs. 



The Porter-Cologne Water-Quality Act, as amended in 2006 - The Porter-Cologne 

Act, (as amended in 2006), is included in the California Water Code. This act 

provides for the protection of water quality by the State Water Resources Board and 

the Regional Water Quality Control Boards, which are authorized by the US 

Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) to enforce the Clean Water Act of 

California. Section 13263 of the Porter Cologne Act requires compliance with the 

Provisions of the Federal Water Pollution control Act as amended in 1972 (also 

known as the CWA) and preparation of a Pollution Prevention Plan for all projects. 

Direction relevant to the proposed action as it affects soil resources includes: 

San Bernardino National Forest Land Management Plan - The Soil and Watershed 

Program cooperates with various water agencies and other national forest functional 

areas to reduce erosion and maintain high quality water for various users and natural 

resources through application of Best Management Practices in all Forest Service 

activities (WAT 1 – Watershed Function) (LMP, Part 2, pg. 27,pg. 136) 

Forest Service Handbook (FSH), (supplemental to the LMP) 2509.22 Chapter 3.21 – 

Stream Protection Measures General to all management activities: 1. all applicable 

best management practices (BMPs) (USDA forest service 2000) should be identified 

and followed in all ground disturbing forest management actions, including all 

contracts, operating plans, and work orders. Chapter 3.30 - Road Construction and 

Maintenance: 4. New culverts, bridges and other stream crossing structures should 

be designed to accommodate at least a 50-year flood event, including associated 

bed load and debris movement (page 19 and 20 of 33). 

National Forest Management Act of 1976 - Renewable Resource Program. 

“recognize the fundamental need to protect and where appropriate, improve the 

quality of soil, water and air resources.” 

Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Direction 

San Bernardino National Forest Plan (2006) 

Forest Wide Standards and Guidelines, Strategies and Tactics (LMP, Part 2, 

Appendix B, pp. 134-136). The Proposed Action is consistent with the Forest Plan if 

mitigation measures / design criteria are implemented. 

Best Management Practices to incorporate into design criteria 

Reference: USDA Forest Service, 2000, Water Quality Management for Forest 

System Lands in California: Best Management Practices, Pacific Southwest Region. 

“Pursuant to Section 208 of the Clean Water Act, all agencies responsible for 

carrying out any portion of a State Water Quality Management Plan must be 

designated as a Water Quality Management Agency (WQMA). Through the 

execution of a formal Management Agency Agreement (MAA) with the Forest 



Service in 1981, the SWRCB designated the Forest Service (USFS) as the WQMA 

for NFS lands in California (See Section 14).” 

Erosion Control Plan (PRACTICE: 2-2) - To limit and mitigate erosion and 

sedimentation through effective planning prior to initiation of construction activities 

and through effective contract administration during construction. 

The detailed mitigations are reflected in the contract specifications and provisions. 

The intent of mitigation is to prevent construction-generated erosion, as well as that 

generated from the completed road, from entering watercourses. 

Following the decision, the Forest Hydrologist will incorporate all appropriate and 

applicable BMPs into the Erosion Control Plan and be included in pre-construction 

meetings with the contractor and proponent to describe the required BMPs. 

Timing of Construction Activities (PRACTICE: 2-3) - To minimize erosion by 

conducting operations during minimal runoff periods. Construction of drainage 

facilities and performance of other contract work to control erosion and 

sedimentation will be required in conjunction with earthwork projects. The operator 

should limit the amount of area being graded at a site at any one time, and should 

minimize the time that an area is laid bare. Erosion control work must be kept current 

when road construction occurs outside of the normal operating season. 

Stabilization of Road Slope Surfaces and Spoil Disposal Areas (PRACTICE: 2- 

4) - To minimize erosion from exposed cut slopes, fill slopes, and spoil disposal 

areas. Depending on site factors such as slope angle, soil type, climate, and 

proximity to waterways, many fill slopes, some cut slopes, and some spoil disposal 

areas will require vegetative and/or mechanical measures to provide surface soil 

stability. 

Road Slope Stabilization Construction Practices (PRACTICE: 2-5) - To reduce 

sedimentation by minimizing erosion from road slopes and slope failure along roads. 

Plan all road construction considering adequate stabilization needs. The first 

planning requirement is an adequate soils and geologic investigation, to provide data 

necessary for proper cut and fill design. 

Control of Road Drainage (PRACTICE: 2-7) - Objective: Is to minimize the erosive 

effects of water concentrated by road drainage features; to disperse runoff from 

disturbances within the road clearing limits; to lessen the sediment yield from roaded 

areas; to minimize erosion of the road prism by runoff from road surfaces and from 

uphill areas. 

Timely Erosion Control Measures on Incomplete Roads and Stream Crossing 

Projects (PRACTICE: 2-9) - The best drainage design can be ineffective if erosion 

control has not been completed by the end of the normal operating season. Apply 

protective measures to all areas of disturbed, erosion-prone, unprotected ground 

that is not to be further disturbed in the present year. When conditions permit 

operations outside of the normal operating season, update the operating plan as 

necessary and keep erosion control measures sufficiently current with ground 



disturbance to allow rapid closure when weather conditions deteriorate. Do not leave 

project areas for the winter with remedial measures incomplete. 

Construction of Stable Embankments (Fills) (PRACTICE: 2-10) - To minimize fill 

failures, design and construct the roadway as a stable and durable earthwork 

structure with adequate strength to support the treadway, shoulders, subgrade and 

the roads traffic loads. 

Control of Sidecast Material During Construction and Maintenance 

(PRACTICE: 2-11) - Sidecasting is an unacceptable construction alternative in areas 

where it can adversely impact water quality. Prior to the start of construction, or 

maintenance activities, waste areas must be located where excess material can be 

deposited and stabilized. During road maintenance operations, potential sidecast 

and other waste material will be utilized on the road surface or removed to 

designated disposal sites. 

Servicing and Refueling of Equipment (PRACTICE: 2-12) - During servicing and 

refueling of road construction equipment, any spilled pollutants can be transported 

by runoff to surface waters. If the volume of fuel exceeds 660 gallons in a single 

container, or if total storage at a site exceeds 1,320 gallons, project Spill Prevention, 

Containment and Counter Measures (SPCC) plans are required. 

Control of Construction and Maintenance Activities Adjacent to SMZs 

(PRACTICE: 2-13) - To protect water quality by controlling construction and 

maintenance actions within and adjacent to any streamside management zone so 

that the following SMZ functions are not impaired: 

1) Acting as an effective filter for sediment generated by erosion from bare surfaces, 

road fills, dust drift, and oil traces; 

2) Maintaining shade, riparian habitat (aquatic and terrestrial), and channel 

stabilizing effects; 

3) Keeping the floodplain surface in a resistant, undisturbed condition to slow water 

velocities and limit erosion by flood flows. 

Controlling In-Channel Excavation (PRACTICE: 2-14) - Excavation during the 

installation of instream structures must follow all of the following minimum water 

quality protection requirements. 

1) Unless otherwise approved, no excavation will be made outside of caissons, cribs, 

cofferdams, or sheet piling. 

2) The natural streambed or lake bottom adjacent to the structure will not be 

disturbed without prior approval of the ER or COR. 

3) If any excavation, or dredging is made at the site of the structure before caissons, 

cribs, or cofferdams are sunk in place, all such excavations will be restored to the 

original surface and the streambed or lake bottom must be protected with suitable 

stable material. 

4) Material deposited within the steam or lake area from foundation, or other 

excavation will not be discharged directly into live streams or lakes, but will be put 



into settling areas as shown on the engineering drawings or as approved by the ER, 

or COR. (See Practice 2-15) 

5) If the channel or lake bottom is disturbed during construction, it must be restored 

to its original configuration while minimizing any additional disturbance. 

6) Disturbances of stream or lake banks are kept to a minimum. Disturbed banks are 

stabilized. 

Diversion of Flows Around Construction Sites (PRACTICE: 2-15) - Streamflow 

must be diverted around construction sites such as bridges, culverts and dams. The 

streamflow will be diverted for all live streams according to the instructions of the ER. 

The diverted flows are returned to their natural streamcourse as soon as possible 

after construction or at least prior to the rainy season. All disturbed areas are 

stabilized prior to the rainy season or as needed. 

Bridge and Culvert Installation (PRACTICE: 2-17) - Excavation is a common 

requirement for the installation of bridges, culverts, weirs, check dam, riprapping and 

other structures. Spoil material generated during construction should neither obstruct 

the stream course (including natural floodplains) nor impair the efficiency of the 

associated structures. 

Preventive measures include: 

1) Keep excavated materials out of channels. 

2) Remove any materials stacked, or stockpiled on floodplains prior to the rainy 

season. 

3) Divert flowing water around work sites to minimize erosion and sedimentation. 

4) Suitably locate bypass roads and develop plans for their subsequent obliteration 

and stabilization. 

5) In some cases, fill material may have to be imported for better soil compaction. 

Original fill may have to be exported to a disposal site. 

Specifying Riprap Composition (PRACTICE: 2-20) - Objective: To minimize 

sediment production associated with the installation and utilization of riprap material. 

Maintenance of Roads (PRACTICE: 2-22) - Objective: To maintain roads in a 

manner which provides for water quality protection by minimizing rutting, failures, 

sidecasting, and blockage of drainage facilities all of which can cause erosion and 

sedimentation, and deteriorating watershed conditions. 

Monitoring requirements to be included in design criteria 

ALL in-channel construction occurring in flowing or dry streams must be evaluated. 

The following protocols will be used to document the activities associated with the 

installation of the culvert. 

All conditions of the 404/401 permits will be followed 

The Forest hydrologist and/or Forest engineer will be informed as to the time 

schedule for installation providing the opportunity to be onsite during the 

process 



Prior to the beginning of construction, photographs will be taken at the site 

documenting the condition of the channel and streambanks to a distance of 5 

active channel widths (Active channel width [ACW] is the width of channel 

inundated by the annual peak flow.) 

Implementation monitoring will include an evaluation of diversion (if needed), 

location of excavated or stockpiled material, and disturbed channel 

restoration 

Effectiveness monitoring will be more intensive if the channel is flowing due to 

a localized event or the timing of the installation. If the monitoring shows 

excess sedimentation or turbidity then the project will be halted pending the 

installation of additional BMPs. 

o If the channel is flowing, then a comparison will be made between a 

location 10 ACWs above the site and 10 ACWs below the construction 

o If the channel is flowing, then turbidity will be tracked to a distance of 

20 ACWs below the site. 

If the channel is not flowing, then the protocols for effectiveness include: 

o disturbed channel will be checked to a distance of 3 ACW, 5 ACW, or 

beyond 5 ACW 

o if fill is in the channel 

o if fill and construction material is left in the 5-yr floodplain 

Monitoring will also be conducted following one winter season after 

completion of the project to see if sediment is eroding from the site, if material 

left on site is stable or entering the channel, and if the disturbed channel was 

returned to pre-construction condition 

Failure of BMP effectiveness following this monitoring will require adaptive 

management maintenance to better prevent erosion 

Forest Service Manual 2500 Watershed and Air Management 

1. Region 5 Supplement 2500-92-4 to FSM 2540 gives guidance on water uses and 

developments. This supplement is not applicable, no withdrawal of surface or 

groundwater 

2. Region 5 Supplement 2500-92-2 to FSM 2526 discusses riparian area 

management and is further defined by The San Bernardino Supplement to 2509.22 – 

Soil and Water Conservation Practices Handbook, FSH 2509.22-2005-1. 

3. Region 5 Supplement 2500-93-1 to FSM 2530: This supplement is applicable and 

has been applied through the implementation and use of best management practices 

(BMPs) and other mitigation measures / design criteria. Erosion control is a concern 

and is addressed through implementation of an Erosion Control Plan for the Project. 

4. FSM 2543 and 2880 are both draft direction for the management of groundwater 

resources. Manual direction has been applied 

All alternatives are consistent because there would be no withdrawal of surface 

and/or groundwater 



Effects Analysis Methodology 

Analysis Area and Spatial/Temporal Boundaries 

The analysis area for watershed resources includes Hog Lake Road and a 300-foot 

buffer. For erosion analysis, effects were analyzed downhill or downstream of the 

road. 

For purposes of analyzing direct, indirect and cumulative effects, the spatial 

boundary was the Forest boundary, one year was used for short-term effects and 20 

years was used for long-term effects. 

Data Sources 

Information on impaired water bodies was obtained from the California Department 

of Water Resources website (State of California, State Water Resources Control 

Board, 2005). 

Soils within the analysis area were mapped and are described in the Soil Survey 

Geographic (SSURGO) database for San Bernardino National Forest Area, 

California CA777 (USDA NRCS 2009) and the Western Riverside Area Inventory 

CA679 (USDA NRCS 2008). Data for a soil survey area includes a tabular 

component and a spatial component. The tabular component was imported into a 

database for querying, reporting and analysis. The spatial component was viewed 

and analyzed using a Geographic Information System (GIS). 

Erosion and Runoff Risk Modeling was completed using FS WEPP - Disturbed 

WEPP. This is a computer model that allows users to quickly evaluate erosion and 

sediment delivery potential from forest activities and roads. Documentation of the 

model, assumptions and limitations can be found on the web site: 

http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/fswepp. The modeling illustrates to decision makers 

and the public various erosion and runoff risks associated with the typical soil found 

on the forest. In general as you increase slope, increase traffic and decrease 

vegetation on sandy soils, erosion will increase. This modeling provides a baseline 

to compare alternatives. 

Existing Condition 

Elevations of the Project site range from 4,045 feet at Bautista Road to 4,720 feet 

above mean sea level at the Project’s terminus on the Ramona Reservation. 

Detailed soil surveys were conducted for the Forest area by the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA 2008 and USDA 2009), 

and are included as a part of the Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) database. 

Soil types occurring on the site of the proposed Project are as illustrated on Figure 

10, Soils. 



Mottsville sandy loam at 2 to 8 percent slopes (MsC) underlies the entire Project 

area. Mottsville soils are located on alluvial fans, fan remnants and fan aprons. 

These soils formed in alluvium derived from granitic rocks. Mottsville soils are 

excessively drained, have negligible or very low surface runoff and rapid or very 

rapid permeability. No effect would be anticipated with respect to expansive soils. 

Used mostly for grazing, the soils may also be used for dry-farmed small grain and 

irrigated peaches, apples, and alfalfa. Typical vegetation associated with this soil 

includes mainly big sagebrush, antelope bitterbrush, Anderson's peachbrush, and 

needlegrasses. 

While sandy loam soils may not readily compact, they are easily eroded, especially 

on a slope or where vegetation has been lost. These sandy soils have a high erosion 

risk. Presently existing drainage and erosion problems will be corrected by installing 

berms, downdrains and rip-rap energy dissipaters. 



Figure 10: Soils 

The Ramona Reservation is situated in a unique geological area. The San Jacinto 

fault zone (SJFZ) actually runs through the length of the Reservation. The San 

Jacinto fault zone is currently the most seismically active fault system in southern 

California. Since 1890 at least six earthquakes greater than M6 were associated 

with this fault zone (Li and Vernon 1994). Locally, the Ramona Reservation is 

situated in lower areas of the SJFZ with several individual faults occurring on the 

Reservation. As is illustrated in Figure 11, Geology, the Project alignment intersects 

one lineament and two covered faults. 

Gemstone mining operations have been documented in the Thomas and Cahuilla 

Mountain area (Jahns and Wright, 1951), (Kunz, 1905), (Murdoch and Webb, 1956). 

The first discovery of tourmaline gems in California was made on the south slope of 

Thomas Mountain in 1872. Other mines in the area followed this initial discovery 

which produced gem quality quartz, beryl, and kunzite until the turn of the century. 

Kunz (1905) described the mines on Thomas Mountain occurring in pegmatite dikes 



as much as fifty feet wide containing multi-colored tourmaline crystals as large as 

four inches across. No mines are located on or near the Project site, however. One 

previous stone quarry is located west of the Project alignment, at a point just south 

of the midpoint. All mining activity is historical, however; there is no mining activity 

presently occurring at or near to this location. 

Figure 11: Geology 

Water Resources 

As illustrated in Figure 12, Watersheds and Wilderness Areas, the Ramona 

Reservation is situated in two watersheds: Santa Margarita and San Jacinto Valley, 

each of which occupies approximately half of the Reservation. The Santa Margarita 

watershed lies within the San Diego Basin, and the San Jacinto Valley watershed is 

in the Santa Ana Basin, as delineated by the Regional Water Quality Control Boards, 

San Diego and Santa Ana Regions. Proposed Action will occur within the San 

Jacinto Valley watershed. The Reservation lies in the Bautista hydrologic subarea, 

which drains northeast from Cahuilla Mountain and southwest from Thomas 

Mountain at Tripp Flats. The San Jacinto Valley watershed drains east to Canyon 

Lake and Lake Elsinore (TMDL 303 listed water bodies). 



The Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board regards every land owner in 

the watershed to be a contributing agent to the water quality of these lakes. Although 

Bautista Creek is not listed on the State's 303(d) list of impaired water bodies, the 

Proposed Action will take steps to ensure that sedimentation (which in turn affects 

nitrogen and phosphorus) movement in the watershed is not negatively affected by 

the Proposed Action. 

Surface water runoff is derived from precipitation in surrounding mountains and 

springs with minor perennial surface flow. On the Ramona Reservation, the primary 

source of water supply to the groundwater basin appears to be natural recharge from 

precipitation; there are no irrigation returned flows and artificial recharge at the time 

of this writing. 

There are no federally-delineated wetlands on or in the immediate vicinity of the 

Project area. The field surveys conducted by L & L Environmental Inc. during the 

preparation of the Biological Assessment for this project confirmed that there were 

no flood plains located along the proposed project alignment that could be impacted. 

A portion of Bautista Creek has been designated a Wild and Scenic River. The 

portion of the Creek that is designated comes within 0.25 miles of the Project area. 

The climate in the Anza region is hot to temperate and sub-humid, and water is a 

critical resource. Average rainfall in the area is approximately 22 inches per year 

(Pryde 1979). Wide temperature fluctuations are characteristic of the area, with the 

possibility of snow during winter months and temperatures exceeding 100 °F in 

summer. The mean annual temperature for the San Jacinto foothills is 

approximately 55 °F. Average annual evapotranspiration is approximately 10 inches 

(CDWR, 1975). 

A single mapped intermittent blueline stream crosses the road alignment. Two other 

small drainages are formed along the road alignment and show connectivity to the 

mapped blueline system of the area. Although drainages fall within the impact area 

these are dry drainages with little to no riparian vegetation. 

Two small manmade ponding/percolation areas were observed by L&L 

Environmental, Inc. during the biological survey, but only one (near the mapped 

blueline) falls within the planned impact zone. No riparian, aquatic or vernal pool 

habitat occurred at this ponding location or within the drainages on the Project site. 

Nor were any naturally occurring vernal pools suitable for occupation by fairy shrimp 

were observed during the survey. 


No Action: 

For the No Action Alternative, it is expected that all direct and indirect impacts on soil 

and water resources would remain unchanged from current condition. Channeling 



along the roadway already occurs and dirt roads are known to produce fine sediment 

in streams. 


For the Proposed Action alternative, generalized impacts to jurisdictional drainages 

would be expected as a result of equipment use, soil disturbance and construction of 

the box culvert. These include an increase in erosion and sedimentation as well as 

the potential for the discharge of hazardous materials. Channeling along the 

roadway already occurs and dirt roads are known to produce fine sediment in 

streams. Construction of the road could result in increased erosion and 

sedimentation with disturbed soils and release hazardous materials from heavy 

equipment into the streambed. 

The proposed action includes the use of a culvert with sufficient size and capacity to 

pass the flows and associated debris from a 25-year return interval storm. While the 

Forest’s Land Management Plan requires sufficient size to accommodate a 50-year 

storm, the project as designed is consistent with BIA standards. As this project is a 

BIA proposal and the road will be brought into the BIA Transportation System, with 

the BIA assuming responsibility for road maintenance, the Forest proposes to allow 

a site specific amendment to the Forest Plan in order to accommodate the BIA. 

Direct effects associated with implementation of the Proposed Action are estimated 

as follows: for the blueline (BL), federal/ACOE 3,977 sf., state/CDFG 6,099 sf.; 

drainage 1, federal /ACOE 170 sf., state/CDFG 170 sf; and drainage 14, 

federal/ACOE 140 sf., state/CDFG 160 sf. Total impacts are estimated at 4,288 sf 

(0.098 acres) federal/ACOE and 6,429 sf (0.148 acres) state/CDFG jurisdictional 

area. 

Indirect effects associated with implementation of the Proposed Action alternative 

include impacts resulting from earthmoving or other construction activities that could 

result in discharge of hazardous materials, silt, debris, or excessive erosion into 

waters of the U.S. during Project construction. 

Direct effects associated with the smaller BIA 25-year culvert design, rather than a 

50-year design, could include debris plugging the culvert during storm events that 

exceed the capacity of the 25-year culvert. Water could be forced out of the existing 

channel and could erode the embankments or cause the loss of the road structure. 

Indirect effects include that the loss of the road could cause access to the 

Reservation to be limited to other, longer routes. 



Figure 12: Watersheds and Wilderness Areas 



Figure 13: Jurisdictional Drainages 

L & L Environmental, Inc., 2009 

Vehicle use increases erosion rates and sedimentation through detachment, 

abrasion and changes to the road surface, making the local sandy and cohesionless 

soils susceptible to transport. Four-wheeled vehicles and motorcycles apply a shear 

stress parallel to the soil surface and a compression stress perpendicular to the 

surface. These stresses are most destructive on uphill route segments, on curves or 

route segments in which the tires may spin. Erosion and sedimentation will be 

prevented through the implementation of an Erosion Prevention Plan for the Project. 

In order to address The Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board’s 

requirement to demonstrate how the Proposed Action would affect sedimentation 

movement in the watershed, the WEPP model 

(http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/fswepp/) was used to generate estimates of 

erosion. Using the WEPP model the amount of erosion generated was calculated for 

Hog Lake Road at various locations as an unpaved road (current condition), and 



those amounts were compared to the amount of erosion generated for Hog Lake 

Road as a paved road (condition after Proposed Action): 

An unpaved road 24’ wide at 94+77 to 84+77 yielded 1,155.63 lb of road 

prism erosion and 679.96 lbs of sediment leaving buffer. 

At 84+77 to 74+77, an unpaved road 24’ wide yielded 1,386.99 lb of road 












At 14+77 to 4+77, an unpaved road 24’ wide yielded 372.92 lb of road prism 

erosion and 188.37 lbs of sediment leaving buffer. 

At all of the above locations, a paved road 24’ wide yielded 0 lb of road prism 

erosion and 0 lbs of sediment leaving buffer. Clearly, paving the road will greatly 

reduce the quantity of sediment entering Canyon Lake/Lake Elsinore (TMDL 303 

listed water bodies). Although runoff would increase erosion with a paved road, the 

implementation of mitigation measures/design features should reduce the amount of 

erosion to a level that is less than significant. 

For the Proposed Action, the Project would reduce federal/ACOE jurisdictional area 

by an additional 4,288 sf (0.098 acres), and state/CDFG jurisdictional area by an 

additional 6,429 sf (0.148 acres); however, these losses will be made up through the 

purchase of at least 0.15 acres of approved mitigation bank credit. 

If the Proposed Action is implemented with mitigation measures / design criteria 

employed, impacts to jurisdictional drainages and Canyon lake/Lake Elsinore and 

downstream in the watershed if the Proposed Action was implemented would be 

reduced to being less than significant. 


Projects and general development within the Forest, District and the Riverside 

Extended Mountain Area Plan (REMAP) area outlined in the Riverside County 



General Plan (RCGP) and Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), 

and private land development projects were considered when determining 

cumulative impacts, and included fuel reduction projects, grazing projects, 

recreational use, designated wilderness areas and Wild and Scenic Rivers in the 

vicinity, road maintenance activities, and future planned commercial enterprises on 

the Ramona Reservation. These projects and their impacts to the environment in the 

vicinity of the proposed Project site are described in detail in the Biological 

Assessment carried out for this project (L & L Environmental, Inc., 2009). 

No Action: 

The No Action Alternative is expected to over time contribute much more to the 

negative cumulative impacts of jurisdictional drainages in the area due to the 

continued erosion and sedimentation originating from the unpaved road. 


Under the Proposed Action construction activities are expected to contribute slightly 

more to the cumulative effects of jurisdictional drainage impacts in the area, but after 

construction is complete the paved road is expected to contribute far less to area 

impacts as erosion and sedimentation from a paved road will be far less than that 

from an unpaved road. Energy dissipaters and improved drainage features will 

decrease erosion and sedimentation originating from storm water flow. 

Chapter 4 - Consultation and Communication 

Reservation Transportation Authority (RTA) 

The Ramona band of Cahuilla Indians 

USDA Forest Service 

Frank Springer & Associates, Inc. 

L & L Environmental, Inc 

US Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Mooney & Associates, Inc. 



References 

California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2006. http://www.arb.ga.gov. 

CDWR (California Department of Water Resources). 1975. California's Groundwater: 

Bulletin 118, 135 pp. 

CARB (California Air Resources Board). 2009. Area Designation Maps, State and 

National. http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm#state 

Holland, R. F. 1986. Preliminary descriptions of the terrestrial natural communities 

of California. Nongame-Heritage Program, California Dept. Fish and Game. 156 pp. 

Jahns, R. H., and Wright, L. A. 1951. Gem and lithium-bearing pegmatites of the 

Pala district, San Diego County, California: California Division of Mines Special 

Report 7-A, 70 pp. 

Kunz, G. F. 1905. Gems, Jewelers' Materials and Ornamental Stones of California. 

California Minerals Bureau Bulletin 37, 171 pp. 

L & L Environmental, Inc. 2009. Biological Evaluation/Assessment for Plants and 

Animals, Botany and Wildlife Report, Management Indicator Species Report, and 

Weed Risk Assessment for the Ramona Indian Reservation Access Road 

Improvement Project. (BE/BA) Unpublished Report. 

Li, Y., Vernon, F. 1997. San Jacinto fault zone guided waves: A discrimination for 

recently active fault strands near Anza, California. J. Geophys. Res.. Vol. 102 (B6), 

pp. 11,689-11,701 

Mooney, Jones, and Stokes. 2005. Quino Checkerspot Butterfly Survey Report for 

the Ramona Indian Reservation, Anza, California. Unpublished Report 

Murdoch, J., and Webb, R. W. 1956. Minerals of California. California Division Mines 

Bulletin 173, 452 pp. 

Pryde, Phillip R. (editor) 1979 San Diego: An Introduction to the Region. 

Kendall/Hunt Publishing, Dubuque, Iowa. 

SCAQMD. 2007. 2007 South Coast Air Quality Management Plan. 

http://www.aqmd.gov/aqmp/07aqmp/index.html. 

State of California, State Water Resources Control Board. 2005. Porter-Cologne 

WaterQuality Control Act. 

http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/laws_regulations/docs/portercologne.pdf Jan 1, 2010 

Tierra Environmental Services. 2002. Cultural Resources Inventory for the Ramona 

Road Improvements Project Unpublished Report. 



USDA Forest Service. V.2009.09.17. WEPP Road: WEPP Interface for Predicting 

Erosion From Insloped or Outsloped Forest Roads. USDA Forest Service Rocky 

Mountain Research Station and San Dimas Technology and Development Center 

http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/fswepp. 

USDA Forest Service 2006. San Bernardino National Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan. Pacific Southwest Region 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/sanbernardino/projects/lmrp.shtml 

USDA Forest Service. LMP 2005. Design Criteria for the Southern California 

National Forests, Part 3, Appendix M: National Forests of Southern California Weed 

Management Strategy. 

USDA Forest Service. 2000. Noxious Weed ManagementStrategy Southern 

California Province, Pacific Southwest Region. 

USDA Forest Service. 1991. National Soil Management Handbook FSH 2509, USDA 

Forest Service, Washington D.C. 

USDA NRCS. 2009. Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) database for San 

Bernardino National Forest Area, California CA777 

http://SoilDataMart.nrcs.usda.gov/ 

USDA NRCS. 2008. Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) database for Western 

Riverside Area, California CA679. http://SoilDataMart.nrcs.usda.gov/ 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and 

Plants; Revised Designation of Critical Habitat for the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly 

(Euphydryas editha quino). Federal Register 73:3327-3373. January 17, 2008. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Biological Opinion, Formal Section 7 

Consultation on the Proposed Ramona Reservation Road Improvement Project, 

Riverside County, California. Unpublished document prepared by the Carlsbad Fish 

and Wildlife Office. 15 pp.

environmental assessment for the hog lake road improvement project

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?