Section 1. Application and Proposed Project.

Resolution No. Date: 12/7/2010 PLP08-0116 Melinda Grosch Resolution of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Sonoma, State of California, Certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Syar Alexander Valley Instream Mining Project and Sonoma County ARM Plan Amendments, a Project Consisting of (1) a Use Permit Allowing Instream Gravel Mining and Implementation of a River Enhancement Plan, (2) Amendments to the Aggregate Resources Management (ARM) Plan and (3) Surface Mining and Aggregate Resources Ordinance (SMARO), and (4) Approval of a Reclamation Plan for Property Located at 22291 River Road, 1701 Alexander Valley Road, and 3125, 3845, 4849, 5125, and 526 Highway 128, Geyserville, APNs 141-190-059, - 056, and -072, 091-010-014, 091-020-012, 131-050-004, 131-060-024, 131-090-004 and -010, 140-060-001 and -002, 140-080-016, 140-220-012 and -013, and 140-230-037; Supervisorial District No. 4 (PLP08-0116) Resolved, that the Board of Supervisors ( the Board ) of the County of Sonoma ( the County ) hereby finds and determines as follows: Section 1. Application and Proposed Project. 1.0 Syar Industries, Inc. ( Syar ) filed Application PLP08-0116 with the Sonoma County Permit and Resource Management Department ( PRMD ) for the approvals and land use entitlements necessary to remove gravel from the Alexander Valley reach of the Russian River and carry out a River Enhancement Plan, at 22291 River Road, 1701 Alexander Valley Road, and 3125, 3845, 4849, 5125, and 526 Highway 128, Geyserville ( the Project Site ), APN 141-190-059, -056, and -072, 091-010-014, 091-020-012, 131-050-004, 131-060-024, 131-090-004 and -010, 140-060-001 and -002, 140-080-016, 140-220-012 and -013, and 140-230-037; Zoned (Resources and Rural Development), B6-20 acre density and B6-40 acre density; RRDWA (Resources and Rural Development/agricultural Preserve), B6-20 acre density; and LIA (Land Intensive Agriculture), B6-20 acre density, BR (Biotic Resource), F1 (Floodway Combining District), F2 (Floodplain Combining District), MR (Mineral Resource), SR (Scenic Resource), VOH (Valley Oak Habitat), Z (Second Dwelling Unit Exclusion); Supervisorial District No. 4. Specifically, as heard and considered by the Board, Application PLP08-01106 requests the following approvals and entitlements (collectively the Proposed Project ): (a) Amendments to the Aggregate Resources Management ( ARM ) Plan ( the ARM Plan ) consisting of the following, and detailed more specifically in Exhibit E to 1

Resolution No. making and adopting a statement of overriding considerations, adopting a mitigation monitoring program, and approving the Proposed Project: (1) An amendment to revise the objectives for instream mining to include protection and enhancement of aquatic habitat; (2) An amendment to revise the process for approval of mining permits to allow exceptions to mining standards; (3) An amendment to allow for a 15-year instream mining permit (rather than a 10-year term) and incorporate an Adaptive Management Strategy (the AMS ) that enables the County to adjust permit conditions based on annual monitoring, performance criteria and consultation with the County s Scientific Review Consultant (the SRC ), resource agencies, and stakeholder groups; and (4) An amendment to allow approval of River Enhancement Plans and Programs in lieu of the Russian River Gravel Mitigation Fee. (b) Amendments to the ARM Plan Mining Standards for the Lower Alexander Valley Mining Reach consisting of the following, and detailed more specifically in Exhibit E to Resolution No. making and adopting a statement of overriding considerations, adopting a mitigation monitoring program, and approving the Proposed Project: (1) An amendment to require expanded monitoring for aquatic habitat to evaluate long-term trends related to pools, sediment intrusion, habitat typing, and habitat mapping; (2) An amendment to establish performance criteria for the Lower Alexander Valley reach to avoid channel degradation; (3) An amendment to change the baseline below which mining cannot occur from a 2% cross-slope from the low flow water surface elevation to a level slope (0% slope) established one foot above the mean low-flow water surface elevation; (4) An amendment to revise the required head of bar buffer from the upper half of the bar (defined as above the apex or widest point of the bar) to the upper one-third of the total length of the bar only when the height of the bar is eight feet above the upstream riffle crest; (5) An amendment to expand the required side bar buffer from a minimum of 15-feet (or as required by resource agencies) to 15% of the channel bed width (defined as the low-flow channel plus the gravel bar) (as shown in Exhibit 1-5 in the Draft Environmental Impact Report ( Draft EIR )) or 50 feet, whichever is greater; (6) An amendment to allow below-water excavations for connection to the low-flow channel at the downstream end of the horseshoe skim and for enhancement features 2

including excavation of alcoves, oxbows, floodplain benches or inset terraces, and installation of large woody debris and bioengineered bank stabilization methods; and (7) An amendment to allow approval of River Enhancement Plans and Programs in lieu of the Russian River Gravel Mitigation Fee. (c) Corresponding amendments to the Surface Mining and Aggregate Resources Ordinance ( SMARO ). (d) A use permit for the Syar Alexander Valley Instream Mining Project and implementation of the River Enhancement Plan, which include but are not limited to the following: (1) Extraction of up to a maximum of 350,000 tons per year of gravel from 15 bars in the Lower Alexander Valley mining reach of the Russian River using the horseshoe skimming method; (2) Enhancement projects including but not limited to the creation of three oxbows and three alcoves and planting of up to 11 acres of riparian habitat equivalent to $1,575,000 over the first six years of the project. (e) A Reclamation Plan. Section 2. Procedural History. 2.0 Syar filed Application PLP08-0116 with the County s Permit and Resource Management Department ( PRMD ) in February 2006. PRMD determined that an environmental impact report ( EIR ) was required for the Proposed Project to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA ) and the State CEQA Guidelines. 2.1 On April 14, 2006, PRMD staff sent a Notice of Preparation for the required EIR to the Office of Planning and Research, each responsible and trustee agency, and interested persons. PRMD staff held a Public Scoping Meeting for the required EIR on May 11, 2006. 2.2 A draft EIR ( the Draft EIR ) was completed for the Proposed Project and a Notice of Completion filed with the Office of Planning and Research on April 30, 2010. The Draft EIR was made available for public and agency review and comment for 49 days from April 30, 2010, to June 17, 2010. 2.3 The Sonoma County Planning Commission ( the Planning Commission ) conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Draft EIR on June 17, 2010. At the hearing, the Commission heard and received all relevant oral and written testimony and evidence presented or filed regarding the Draft EIR. All interested persons were given the opportunity to hear and be heard. At the conclusion of public testimony, the Planning Commission closed the hearing and gave its comments on the Draft EIR. 3

2.4 Syar revised its project description in letters to the County dated July 27 and August 23, 2010, to eliminate the use of Haul Routes 2 and 5 and proposed the rocking of the remaining Haul Routes. This revision eliminated the impacts to air quality, noise, and other environmental resources that would have occurred from use of Haul Routes 2 and 5. 2.5 A Response to Comments Document ( RTC Document ) was completed for the Proposed Project on September 10, 2010. The RTC Document was released to the public and provided to all responsible and commenting agencies. The RTC Document responded to all comments on the Proposed Project. The RTC Document included as Appendix D an analysis of the Project changes identified in paragraph 2.4. That analysis determined that with incorporation of mitigation measures, all Project-generated fugitive particulate matter emissions from truck travel would be less than significant. 2.6 PRMD prepared and distributed a staff report for the Planning Commission on the EIR and the Proposed Project, dated September 23, 2010 ( the Planning Commission Staff Report ). In the Planning Commission Staff Report, PRMD staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend that the Board certify the EIR, adopt a statement of overriding considerations, and approve the Proposed Project. 2.7 The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the EIR and the Proposed Project on September 23, 2010. At the hearing, the Planning Commission heard and received all relevant oral and written testimony and evidence presented or filed regarding the EIR and Proposed Project. All interested persons were given the opportunity to hear and be heard. At the conclusion of the public testimony, the Planning Commission closed the hearing, discussed the EIR and the Proposed Project, and on a 4-1 vote, adopted Resolution No. 10-023 recommending that the Board certify the EIR, adopt a statement of overriding considerations, and approve the Proposed Project. 2.8 PRMD staff prepared and distributed a memorandum to the Board ( the PRMD Staff Memorandum to the Board ) summarizing the Planning Commission s proceedings and action on the EIR and the Proposed Project. PRMD staff attached the Planning Commission Staff Report and other relevant documents to the memorandum for the Board s review. PRMD staff also distributed a letter dated October 26, 2010 from James A. Reyff, a Senior Consultant at Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. that responded to comments regarding emissions of fugitive particulate matter from the Proposed Project. 2.9 The Board conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the EIR and the Proposed Project on October 26, 2010. At the hearing, the Board heard and received all relevant oral and written testimony and evidence presented or filed regarding the EIR and the Proposed Project. All interested persons were given the opportunity to hear and be heard. At the conclusion of public testimony, the Board closed the hearing, discussed the EIR and the Proposed Project, and, on a 5-0 straw vote, determined to certify the EIR, adopt a statement of overriding considerations, amend the ARM Plan and SMARO, and approve the Proposed Project. County Counsel was directed to return to the Board with resolutions reflecting the consideration and actions of the Board. 4

2.10 The Board has had an opportunity to review this resolution and hereby finds that it accurately sets forth the intentions of the Board regarding the EIR and the Proposed Project. Section 3. CEQA Compliance. 3.0 The final EIR ( Final EIR ) consists of the Draft EIR, Response to Comments Document, and the following technical documents responding to late comments: A. Letter from James A. Reyff, Senior Consultant, Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. to Chris Seppeler, Review of DEIR Fugitive Particulate Matter Emissions (Oct. 26, 2010). B. Memo from Mitchell Katzell, Cardno ENTRIX, to Chris Seppeler and Melinda Grosch, Response to Late Comments From Russian Riverkeeper on the EIR for the Syar Alexander Valley Instream Mining Project and Sonoma County ARM Plan Amendments (Dec. 3, 2010). 3.1 The Final EIR was prepared, noticed, and made available for public and agency review in accordance with all procedural and substantive requirements of CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and local ordinances. 3.2 As discussed in paragraphs 2.4 and 2.5, before publication of the Response to Comments Document, Syar revised the Proposed Project to eliminate the use of Haul Routes 2 and 5 and propose the rocking of the remaining haul routes, resulting in the reduction of air emissions, noise, and other impacts on sensitive receptors along Haul Routes 2 and 5 and, with mitigation, reducing all Project-related fugitive particulate matter emissions from truck travel to less than significant. These revisions were analyzed in the RTC Document. 3.3 The Final EIR represents a good faith effort to provide full and adequate disclosure of the environmental impacts of the Proposed Project. 3.4 The Final EIR constitutes an adequate, accurate, objective, and complete EIR for the purpose of approving the Proposed Project. 3.5 Comments received after publication of the Draft EIR, and after publication of the RTC Document, have been evaluated by the County, and those comments have been addressed in the record, including in the technical documents cited above and the staff reports and testimony before the Planning Commission and before the Board. These comments do not demonstrate that there is any new or substantially more severe significant environmental impact relating to the Proposed Project, and do not demonstrate that there is any newly feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from those evaluated in the Final EIR that would clearly lessen any significant environmental effects of the Proposed Project. 5

Section 4. Evidence in the Record. 4.0 The findings and determinations set forth in this resolution are based upon the record of these proceedings. References to specific statutes, ordinances, regulations, reports, or documents in a finding or determination are not intended to identify those sources as the exclusive basis for the finding or determination. Now, Therefore, Be It Further Resolved, that, based on the foregoing findings and determinations and the record of these proceedings, the Board hereby declares and orders as follows: 1. The foregoing findings and determinations are true and correct, are supported by substantial evidence in the record, and are adopted as hereinabove set forth. 2. The Board certifies that the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the Final EIR was presented to the Board and the Board reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR prior to approving the Proposed Project, and the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the Board. 3. The Clerk of the Board is designated as the custodian of the documents and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which the Board s decisions herein are based. These documents may be found at the office of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, 575 Administration Drive, Room 100-A, Santa Rosa, California 95403. Supervisors: Kerns: Zane: Kelley: Carrillo: Brown: Ayes: Noes: Absent: Abstain: So Ordered. 6