Loading...
2021-08-06 Middlemiss - CBD August 6, 2021 Sent via email Nicole Sauviat Criste, Consulting Planner City of La Quinta, 78‐495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA 92253 consultingplanner@laquintaca.gov Re: Comments on Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR SCH# 2021020310 Dear Ms. Sauviat Criste: These comments are submitted on behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity (the “Center”) regarding the Coral Mountain Resort Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) drafted and released by the City of La Quinta (the “City”). The Center has reviewed the Coral Mountain Resort (the “Project”) DEIR closely and is concerned that the DEIR fails to adequately assess the Project’s impacts on biological resources and water supply, among other impacts. The Center urges the City to address the deficiencies identified in this letter and recirculate a new DEIR for public comment prior to preparing a final EIR for the Project. The Center is a non-profit, public interest environmental organization dedicated to the protection of native species and their habitats through science, policy, and environmental law. The Center has over 1.7 million members and online activists throughout California and the United States. The Center has worked for many years to protect imperiled plants and wildlife, open space, air and water quality, and overall quality of life for people in and around La Quinta. CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines impose numerous requirements on public agencies proposing to approve or carry out projects. Among other things, CEQA mandates that significant environmental effects be avoided or substantially lessened where feasible. (Pub. Res. Code § 21002; CEQA Guidelines §§ 15002(a)(3), 15021(a)(2), 15126(d).) Unfortunately, the DEIR for the Project fails to comply with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines in numerous respects I. Biological Issues While we recognize that the project area is within the “take” boundary of the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan, concerns still remain about the absence of mechanisms to prevent Peninsular bighorn sheep from being attracted to the wave pool feature and non-native plantings. We also have concerns about the night lighting as described below. A. Peninsular Bighorn Sheep August 6, 2021 Page 2 The Center has worked for years trying to protect and recover the Peninsular bighorn sheep, a federally endangered species protected under the federal Endangered Species Act and state-listed and fully protected species under State law. Nearby projects in La Quinta have been responsible for numerous Peninsular bighorn sheep deaths (Hurt 2016). At the city-owned SilverRock golf course, fences have been erected to preclude bighorn from coming onto the golf course and associated facilities, helping to keep bighorn out of harm’s way (KESQ News Team 2019). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Peninsular Bighorn Sheep Recovery Plan (2000) recommends the following measures be implemented to help in the recovery of Peninsular bighorn, which is particularly important in the La Quinta area where mortalities of bighorn continue. 1.2.1.1 Construct fences to exclude bighorn sheep from urban areas where they have begun or may begin using urban sources of food and water. Fences serve several functions including: (1) separating bighorn sheep from potential threats of urbanization (e.g., toxic plants, parasites, accidents, vector-borne diseases, traffic, herbicides, pesticides, behavioral habituation), (2) controlling human and pet access to remaining bighorn sheep habitat, (3) preventing bighorn sheep from becoming habituated to and dependent upon artificial sources of food and water, and (4) modifying habituated behaviors and redirection into remaining native habitat. In the northern Santa Rosa Mountains, ongoing coordination with cities and landowners on a regional fencing strategy will be critical to the long-term health and maintenance of this ewe group… cooperation by residential landowners will be critical to the success of excluding the northern Santa Rosa Mountains ewe group from urban habitats. Along the remainder of the urban interface, where sheep have not yet shown indications of habituation to human habitats, future behavioral habituation also may occur. Although fencing may be viewed as a last resort to other potential forms of aversive conditioning, prudent planning dictates that mitigation be required to offset the likelihood of future adverse effects (behavioral habituation and increased mortality rates) when new projects are approved along the urban interface. Though actual fence construction could be contingent upon future use by sheep and the ineffectiveness of other potential deterrents, the wherewithal, responsibilities, and easements for fences should be determined and secured at the time of project approval. (emphasis added) Fences should be 2.4 meters (8 feet) high, or functionally equivalent, and should not contain gaps in which bighorn sheep can be entangled. Gaps should be 11centimeters (4.3 inches) or less. This fence design should only be used at the urban interface.” 1.2.1.2 Avoid non-native vegetation along unfenced habitat interfaces where it may attract or concentrate bighorn sheep. Along fenced sections of the urban interface, ornamental and toxic plants should not extend over or through fences where they may be accessible to browsing bighorn sheep. August 6, 2021 Page 3 1.2.1.4 Prohibit the use of any known toxic plants where they may be accessible to bighorn sheep or potentially invade bighorn sheep habitat. A list of known toxic plants should be provided to all developers, landscapers, and homeowners. 1.2.1.5 Discourage the use of plants known to invade and degrade bighorn sheep habitat (e.g., tamarisk, fountain grass). 1.2.1.6 Prohibit intentional enticement of bighorn sheep onto private property. This item includes, but is not limited to, vegetation, mineral licks, or unfenced swimming pools, ponds, or fountains upon which bighorn sheep may become dependent for water. 1.2.1.9 Prohibit the construction of water bodies in developed areas adjoining sheep habitat that may promote the breeding of midges (Culicoides sp.) and monitor/control vectors in existing problematic ponds. Water features should be designed to eliminate blue-tongue and other vector-borne diseases by providing deeper water (over 0.9 meters [3 feet]), steeper slopes (greater than 30 degrees), and if possible, rapidly fluctuating water levels (see Mullens 1989, Mullens and Rodriquez 1990). Landowners and managers should coordinate with local mosquito and vector control districts to ensure management of existing water bodies that harbor vector species. 1.2.1.10 Discourage the artificial feeding of coyotes because of the potential for increasing predator abundance and consequent predation on bighorn sheep. USFWS at 80-83. We request that these recommendations be incorporated into the conditions for approval for this proposed project. B. Light Study Needed in DEIR Review While Mitigation Measure BIO-4 requires a Light Study to be performed in the future in order to evaluate how the proposed lighting plan will affect Coral Mountain, this type of study should have been provided in the DEIR. The detrimental effects of artificial night lighting on wildlife are scientifically well documented (Longcore and Rich 2004, Gaston et al. 2013, Gaston and Bennie 2014). While the proposed shielded lighting is likely to be helpful to offset impacts, until the Light Study is actually implemented and the results are identified, it may be insufficient to offset impacts to the plants and animals that reside on Coral Mountain. The results of the Light Study should be included in a revised DEIR for public review. August 6, 2021 Page 4 II. The DEIR’s Analysis of Water Supply Impacts is Inadequate California, and much of the western United States, is suffering the effects of a historic drought, the end of which is not predicted any time soon. The majority of Riverside County is experiencing either “severe”, or “extreme” drought conditions, with a small portion in the most dire, “exceptional” drought category. (U.S. Drought Monitor.) As the frequency and intensity of droughts in California increase due to climate change, it is critical that land use decision-making be made based on robust and thorough water supply analyses. Unfortunately, the DEIR completely ignores the reality in which the proposed Project would operate, and fails to include a legally adequate discussion of the Projects demand for water, the available supply, nor the environmental consequences of providing the needed supply. A. The DEIR’s Presentation of Project Water Demand is Misleading The DEIR attempts to frame the Project’s water use as an improvement compared to what could be used under different plans for the site. It’s a false comparison that distracts from the Project’s astronomically high per capita water use. The DEIR presents the Project’s water use in comparison to uses approved under the current Specific Plan, which would use a total of 1,058.4 acre-feet per year (“AFY”), compared with the Project’s water demand of 958.63 AFY. (DEIR at 4.15-28-29.) The Project site is currently undeveloped (DEIR at 3-5), and not currently receiving any water from the Coachella Valley Water District (“CVWD”), who will serve the Project. The DEIR must describe the Project’s existing conditions so that the public and decision-makers are adequately informed of the impacts of supplying this Project with water. (See Woodward Park Homeowners Assn., Inc. v. City of Fresno (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 683, 709-10 [“[i]n assessing the impacts of a project proposed for an undeveloped piece of property, agencies should compare project impacts against the existing environment, rather than some hypothetical, impacted future environment that might occur without the project under existing general plan and/or zoning designations” (internal quotations omitted)].) The Project is a standalone land use proposal for a site that is not developed, the water supply impacts of the Project must be presented as such, without any misleading comparisons to irrelevant preexisting land use designations. A wave park may be a more conservative use of water compared to a hypothetical golf course, but a wave park where once was parched desert earth is a different consideration all together. The DEIR fails to adequately describe the Project’s water use in terms of per capita use. The DEIR notes that CVWD’s per capita use is dropping so that in 2015 users within the CVWD service area used 383 gallons per day per capita (“gpdc”). (DEIR at 4.15-30.) As a threshold matter, this is an astonishing amount of water use, especially compared to the statewide average in 2016 of 85 gpdc.1 After noting CVWD’s purportedly positive achievement of recent reductions meaning per capita use is now only 4 times the state average of water per person, the DEIR fails to disclose what the Project’s per capita water use will be. Instead, the DEIR presents the Project’s water use in terms of AF/acre, without any explanation of why this metric is used, or what an acceptable threshold is compared to other development within CVWD’s service area. 1 Legislative Analyst’s Office, Residential Water Use Trends and Implications for Conservation Policy, available at: https://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/3611, viewed 8/4/2021. August 6, 2021 Page 5 (See DEIR at 4.15-31.) The Project would include 600 residential dwelling units, with 2.63 persons per units. (DEIR App. M [hereinafter “Water Supply Assessment (WSA)” at 21.) Should the public presume that the Project’s 958.63 AFY of use will be attributed to these 1,578 new residents, such that per capita use is approximately 532 gpdc? The DEIR must be revised to present the Project’s per capita water use, and it must present this information using metrics consistent with other CVWD planning documents so that the public and decision-makers can properly judge the Project’s water supply impacts. B. The DEIR Fails to Assess the Environmental Impacts Associated Providing Project Water Beyond its muddled presentation of the Project’s exceedingly high water demands, the DEIR fails to address the impacts associated with acquiring the water supplies needed for the Project and other users in the CVWD service area. CEQA requires lead agencies both to demonstrate that an adequate water supply is available for the lifespan of a project, and to analyze the environmental impacts associated with providing that supply. (See Vineyard Area Citizens v. Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 434.) A majority of the high per capita use within the CVWD service area is supplied by groundwater from the Indio Subbasin. (WSA at 29.) The Indio Subbasin has experienced historical overdraft, which CVWD has been addressing with artificial recharge using imported surface water supplies. (See WSA at 35.) The imported surface water used to replenish the historically over-taxed groundwater basin comes from the Colorado River, with annual CVWD diversions totaling more than 335,000 AF. (WSA at 41.) The WSA states that this supply will increase in the future to well over 400,000 AFY, which will be used to meet increased demand within the CVWD service area so that reliance on groundwater is lessened. (Id.) This discussion ignores the reality that the Colorado River is in a state of crisis, with the major water supply reservoirs at historically low levels. The level of Lake Mead has dropped to below the 1,075 feet mean sea level (“feet msl”) threshold where mandatory cuts to water sent to Arizona and Nevada will occur.2 If the Lake Mead levels drop further, which is predicted to occur, California will see its deliveries curtailed. The DEIR is silent when it comes to whether CVWD will be able to receive its full allocation of Colorado River water into the future, nor does it address what continued extraction to supplement CVWD’s groundwater use will mean to the environment. The DEIR creates further uncertainty to its future supply, and the impacts associated therewith, when discussing the amount of State Water Project (“SWP”) water it will import to facilitate an exchange agreement with Metropolitan Water District (“MWD”). (WSA at 42-43.) The projected SWP deliveries provided in the DEIR are misleading, as these totals represent nothing more than “paper water” allocations, not what will actually be delivered. The DEIR only lists the actual allocations up until 2018. (WSA at 43.) Table A allocation for 2020 was 20%, and only 5% for 2021.3 Existing constraints on deliveries from the SWP will only increase as climate 2 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Lower Colorado River Operations, Lake Mead at Hoover Dam, end of months elevation. Available at: https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/g4000/hourly/mead -elv.html, viewed 8/4/2021. 3 California Department of Water Resources, Bulletin 132 Management of the California State Water Project. available at: https://water.ca.gov/Programs/State-Water-Project/Management/Bulletin-132. Viewed 8/4/2021. August 6, 2021 Page 6 change alters precipitation patterns and droughts intensify. The DEIR should properly recognize this reality, and revise its discussion to present how much SWP is actually received by CVWD, so that the public is adequately informed of the potential to serve the Project. III. Conclusion Given the possibility that the Center will be required to pursue appropriate legal remedies in order to ensure enforcement of CEQA, we would like to remind the City of its duty to maintain and preserve all documents and communications that may constitute part of the “administrative record.” As you may know, the administrative record encompasses any and all documents and communications which relate to any and all actions taken by the City with respect to the Project, and includes “pretty much everything that ever came near a proposed [project] or [] the agency’s compliance with CEQA . . . .” (County of Orange v. Superior Court (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 1, 8.) The administrative record further contains all correspondence, emails, and text messages sent to or received by the City’s representatives or employees, which relate to the Project, including any correspondence, emails, and text messages sent between the City’s representatives or employees and the project proponent’s representatives or employees. Maintenance and preservation of the administrative record requires that, inter alia, the City (1) suspend all data destruction policies; and (2) preserve all relevant hardware unless an exact replica of each file is made. Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the proposed Coral Mountain Resort Project. The Center is deeply concerned by the significant environmental and social impacts of the proposed Project. The DEIR fails to meet CEQA’s requirements for thorough, transparent and evidence-based environmental review, and is thus legally deficient. We ask the City to address and correct the deficiencies we have identified above and recirculate an updated Draft EIR for public review and comment. Please add the Center to your notice list for all future updates to the Project and do not hesitate to contact the Center with any questions at the number or email listed below. Sincerely, Ross Middlemiss Staff Attorney 1212 Broadway, Suite #800 Oakland, CA 94612 rmiddlemiss@biologicaldiversity.org Tel: (510) 844-7115 August 6, 2021 Page 7 Ileene Anderson Senior Scientist/Public Lands Desert Director Center for Biological Diversity 660 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90017 ianderson@biologicaldiversity.org (213) 785-5407 cc: Brian Croft, USFWS, Brian_Croft@fws.gov Leslie MacNair, CDFW Leslie.MacNair@wildlife.ca.gov Elizabeth Meyerhoff, CVWD emeyerhoff@cvwd.org August 6, 2021 Page 8 References Gaston, K.J., and J. Bennie 2014. Demographic effects of artificial nighttime lighting on animal Populations. Environ. Rev. 22: 323–330 Gaston, K.J., J. Bennie, Davies, T.W. and J. Hopkins 2013. The ecological impacts of nighttime light pollution: a mechanistic appraisal. Biol. Rev. 88: 912–927. Hurt, S. (2016, September 27) Environmental groups to sue over endangered bighorn sheep deaths. Press Enterprise. Available at: https://www.pe.com/2016/09/27/environmental-groups- to-sue-over-endangered-bighorn-sheep-deaths/ https://kesq.com/news/2019/08/22/more-fencing-possible-in-la-quinta-to-protect-bighorn-sheep/ KESQ News Team (2019, August 22) More fencing possible in La Quinta to protect bighorn sheep. Available at https://kesq.com/news/2019/08/22/more-fencing-possible-in-la-quinta-to- protect-bighorn-sheep/ Longcore, T. and K. Rich 2004. Ecological Light Pollution. Front Ecol Environ 2(4): 191–198 United States Drought Monitor, Current Map California. July 29, 2021. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2000. Recovery plan for bighorn sheep in the Peninsular Ranges, California. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. xv+251 pp. Available at https://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/001025.pdf