CC Resolution 2006-052 RECINDEDRESOLUTION NO. 2006-052
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA,
CALIFORNIA, MAKING RESPONSIBLE AGENCY FINDINGS PURSUANT
TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FOR THE
MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN/NATURAL
COMMUNITY CONSERVATION PLAN, APPROVING THE COACHELLA
VALLEY MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION
PLAN/NATURAL COMMUNITY CONSERVATION PLAN AND
IMPLEMENTING AGREEMENT, AND ADOPTING ENVIRONMENTAL
FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT
WHEREAS, the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation
Plan (the "MSHCP" or "Project") is a regional, comprehensive, multi -jurisdictional
habitat conservation plan focusing on the conservation of both sensitive species
and their associated habitats in order to address biological and ecological diversity
and conservation needs in the Coachella Valley; sets aside significant areas of
undisturbed land for the conservation of sensitive habitat; maintains opportunities
for recreation; preserves open space; and maintains a strong and sustainable
environment for economic Development in the region; and
WHEREAS, the MSHCP establishes a framework for compliance with
State and Federal Endangered Species regulations while accommodating future
growth in the MSHCP Plan Area, including issuance of "Take" Permits for certain
species pursuant to Section 10(a) (1) (B) of the Federal Endangered Species Act
("ESA") and Section 2800, et seq. of the California Fish and Game Code (otherwise
known as the "Natural Community Conservation Planning Act" or "NCCP Act of
2001 "); and
WHEREAS, the Coachella Valley Association of Governments
("CVAG") is the lead agency pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
("CEQA") (Public Res. Code, § 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (14
CCR § 15000 et seq.); and
WHEREAS, a joint Environmental Impact Report/Statement ("EIR/EIS")
has been prepared pursuant to CEQA and the National Environmental Policy Act
("NEPA") in order to analyze all potential adverse environmental impacts of the
Project; and
WHEREAS, CVAG, at a public meeting on February 6, 2006 reviewed
the Final EIR/EIS, MSHCP/Natural Communities Conservation Plan ("NCCP"),
Implementation Agreement, Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program
("MMRP") and other related documents in the record before it and by Resolution
Resolution No. 2006-052
CVMSHCP - Environmental Findings
Adopted: May 16, 2006
Page. 2
No. 06-002, certified the Final EIR/EIS, selected the Preferred Alternative and
approved the MSHCP/NCCP, Implementation Agreement and MMRP; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines sections 15091,
15096, sub.(h), 15381, and other provisions of CEQA, the City of La Quinta,
California ("City") is a responsible agency for the Project and must therefore make
certain findings prior to the approval of the MSHCP; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City, at its regularly scheduled
public meeting on May 18, 2006, independently reviewed and considered the Final
EIR/EIS and other related documents in the record before it; and
WHEREAS, all the procedures of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines
have been met, and the Final EIR/EIS, prepared in connection with the Project, is
sufficiently detailed so that all the potentially significant effects of the Project on
the environment and measures necessary to avoid or substantially lessen such
effects have been evaluated in accordance with the above -referenced Act and
Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, as contained herein, the City has endeavored in good faith
to set forth the basis for its decision on the Project; and
WHEREAS, all of the findings and conclusions made by the City
Council pursuant to this Resolution are based upon the oral and written evidence
presented to it as a whole and not based solely on the information provided in this
Resolution; and
WHEREAS, prior to taking action, the City Council has heard, been
presented with, reviewed and considered all of the information and data presented
to it, including the Draft EIR/EIS, Final EIR/EIS and other documentation relating to
the Project, and all oral and written evidence presented to it; and
WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this
Resolution have occurred.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA AS FOLLOWS:
A. The Final EIR/EIS prepared for the MSHCP is hereby received by the City
Council in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A, and incorporated herein by
this reference.
Resolution No. 2006-052
CVMSHCP — Environmental Findings
Adopted: May 16, 2006
Page 3
B. The City Council hereby finds and determines that the Final EIR/EIS has been
completed in compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines and, as
the decision -making body for the City of La Quinta, California the City
Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final
EIR/EIS and related documents before it and all of the environmental effects
of the MSHCP.
C. The City Council concurs with the environmental findings in CVA(.3
Resolution No. 06-002 and adopts these findings, attached hereto as Exhibit
B and incorporated herein by this reference. The City Council also finds that
there are no additional feasible mitigation measures or alternatives within its
powers that would substantially lessen or avoid any significant effects that
the MSHCP would have on the environment.
D. The City Council hereby approves the MSHCP and authorizes the Mayor to
execute the Implementation Agreement.
E. The City Council hereby authorizes and directs that a Notice of
Determination shall be filed with the Clerk of the County of Riverside within
five (5) working days of approval of the Project.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta City Council, held on this 16th day of May, 2006, by the following vote, to
wit:
AYES: Council Members Henderson, Kirk, Osborne, Sniff, Mayor Adolph
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
DON ADOLPH, yor
City of La Quinta California
Resolution No. 2006-052
CVMSHCP - Environmental Findings
Adopted: May 16, 2006
Page 4
.ATTEST:
JUNE S. G EEK, MMC, City CI
City of La Quinta, California
(CITY SEAL)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
M. KATHEAINE JENSON
City of La Quinta, Califo
a
y Attorney
EXHIBIT "A"
Exhibit "A" is on file in the City Clerk's Department listed
in the Uniform Function Filing System as "1403.19 -
Multi Species Habitat Conservation Plan." The Final
EIR/EIS prepared for the MSHCP is in the "file room" in
the Clerk's Department, Volume 3.
EXHIBIT "B"
RESOLUTION NO. 06-002
CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT FOR THE COACHELLA VALLEY MULTIPLE
SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN, APPROVING
THE COACHELLA VALLEY MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT
CONSERVATION PLAN / NATURAL COMMUNITY
CONSERVATION PLAN, IMPLEMENTING AGREEMENT,
AND THE MITIGATION, MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM, AND SELECTING THE PREFERRED
ALTERNATIVE
WHEREAS, the Coachella Valley Association of Governments ("CVAG") has prepared,
in cooperation and coordination with the California Department of Fish and Game ("CDFG"),
United States Fish and Wildlife Service ("USFWS"), the Cities of Cathedral City, Coachella,
Desert Hot Springs, Indian Wells, Indio, La Quinta, Palm Desert, Palm Springs and Rancho
Mirage, the County of Riverside, Riverside County Flood Control, Riverside County Parks,
Riverside County Waste Resources Management District, the Imperial Irrigation District ("IID"),
the Coachella Valley Water District ("CVWD"), California Department of Transportation,
California Department of Parks and Recreation, the Coachella Valley Mountains Conservancy,
and other governmental agencies, property owners, Development interests, environmental
interest groups and other members of the public, a comprehensive Multiple Species Habitat
Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan for the Coachella Valley in Riverside
County ("MSHCP or Plan"); and
WHEREAS, the Coachella Valley MSHCP is a regional, comprehensive, multi -
jurisdictional Habitat Conservation Plan focusing on Conservation of Federal and State -Listed
Species, other rare and sensitive species, and their Habitats, while maintaining opportunities for
recreation and a strong and sustainable environment for economic Development in the region;
and
WHEREAS, the MSHCP boundary ("MSHCP Plan Area") encompasses approximately
1,850 square miles, consisting of approximately 1.1 million acres, extending eastward from the
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan boundary line in Cabazon
where it is bounded by the range line common to Range 1 East and Range 2 East, bounded by the
San Bernardino County line and the Little San Bernardino Mountains on the north and northeast;
the ridgeline of the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountains on the west and southwest; the
boundary line with San Diego and Imperial Counties to the south; and bounded by the Chocolate
Mountains Aerial Gunnery Range and the range line common to Range 13 East and Range 14
East on the east; and containing the cities of Cathedral City, Coachella, Desert Hot Springs,
Indian Wells, Indio, La Quinta, Palm Desert, Palm Springs, and Rancho Mirage; and
WHEREAS, the MSHCP establishes a framework for compliance with State and Federal
Endangered Species regulations while accommodating future growth in the MSHCP Plan Area,
including issuance of "Take" Permits for certain species pursuant to Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the
Federal Endangered Species Act ("ESA") and Section 2800, et seq. of the California Fish and
Game Code (otherwise known as the "Natural Community Conservation Planning Act" or
"NCCP Act of 2001 "); and
WHEREAS, CVAG is the lead agency pursuant to the California Environmental Quality
Act ("CEQA") (Public Res. Code, § 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR §
15000 et seq.), and the USFWS is the Federal lead agency under the National Environmental
Policy Act ("NEPA") (40 C.F.R. 1508.16, 1508.17) (CVAG and USFWS will collectively be
referred to hereinafter as "Lead Agencies"); and
2
WHEREAS, a joint Environmental Impact Report/Statement ("EIR/EIS") has been
prepared pursuant to CEQA and NEPA which provides a comprehensive assessment of the
potential environmental impacts that could result from the adoption and implementation of the
proposed MSHCP, and provides the appropriate decision -makers with the required information
upon which to base a decision to adopt the MSHCP; and
WHEREAS, CVAG filed a Notice of Preparation ("NOP") of a Draft EIR/EIS with the
State Clearinghouse on June 19, 2000. The NOP was also distributed to each responsible and
trustee agency (and any federal agency involved in approving or funding the project) pursuant to
State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15082(a) and 15373, and was circulated for a period of 30
days, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15082(b) and 15103; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15082, the Lead Agencies
solicited comments from potential responsible agencies, including details about the scope and
content of the environmental information related to the responsible agency's area of statutory
responsibility, as well as the significant environmental issues, reasonable alternatives and
mitigation measures that the responsible agency would need to have analyzed in the Draft
EIR/EIS; and
WHEREAS, approximately 29 written comments were received by the Lead Agencies in
response to the NOP, that assisted the Lead Agencies in narrowing the issues and alternatives for
analysis in the Draft EIR/EIS; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15085 and 15372, the Draft
EIR/EIS was completed and released for public review, and a Notice of Completion ("NOC")
was filed at the State Clearinghouse and with the Riverside County Clerk on or about November
3
8, 2004, and a copy of the NOC was published in the Desert Sun on or about November 5, 2004.
The NOC provided a summary of the Plan and its alternatives and a deadline for submittal of
comments, and a list of 23 locations and the internet address where a copy of the Plan could be
viewed; and
WHEREAS, on February 10, 2005, the Lead Agencies published a Notice of Extension
of the review and comment period in the Desert Sun notifying the public that the comment
period was being extended until March 7, 2005; and
WHEREAS, in February 2005, CVAG sent a letter to each property owner of record
("Property Owner Letter") within the Conservation Areas of the Plan notifying them that the
Draft MSHCP, Implementing Agreement ("IA"), and EIR/EIS were available for review. As a
result of the issuance of the Property Owner Letter, CVAG has consulted with more than 400
property owners; and
WHEREAS, during the official public review period for the Draft EIR/EIS, the Lead
Agencies received over 310 written and oral comments; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 21092.5, CVAG
provided written responses to comments from all commenting agencies; and
WHEREAS, the Lead Agencies prepared the Final EIR/EIS and, pursuant to Public
Resources Code Section 21092.5, CVAG provided copies of the Final EIR to all commenting
agencies; and
WHEREAS, CVAG, at a public meeting on February 6, 2006, reviewed the Final
EIR/EIS, MSHCP/Natural Communities Conservation Plan ("NCCP"), IA, Mitigation,
4
Monitoring and Reporting Program ("MMRP"), and other related documents in the record before
it; and
WHEREAS, as contained herein, CVAG has endeavored in good faith to set forth the
basis for its decision on the Project; and
WHEREAS, all of the findings and conclusions made by CVAG pursuant to this
Resolution are based upon the oral and written evidence presented to it as a whole; and
WHEREAS, no comments made in the public hearings conducted by the Lead Agencies
or any additional information submitted have produced substantial new information requiring
recirculation or additional environmental review under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5;
and
WHEREAS, all the procedures of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines have been
met, and the Final EIR/EIS, prepared in connection with the Project, is sufficiently detailed so
that all potentially significant effects of the Project on the environment and measures necessary
to avoid or substantially lessen such effects have been evaluated in accordance with the
above -referenced Act and its Guidelines; now, therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED, FOUND, DETERMINED, AND ORDERED by the CVAG
Executive Committee on February 6, 2006, that:
A. Certain plant and animal species and Habitat exist, or may exist, within the
MSHCP Plan Area, which are: 1) state or federally listed as threatened or
endangered; 2) proposed for listing as threatened or endangered; or 3) identified
as a CDFG Species of Special Concern, a California Fully Protected Species, a
5
California Specially Protected Species, a sensitive plant species as determined by
the California Native Plant Society, or other unlisted wildlife considered to be
sensitive.
B. Future growth and land Development within the MSHCP Plan Area, including
both public and private projects, may result in impacts to 27 species ("Covered
Species") identified in the Plan and its associated documents, eleven of which are
listed under the ESA or the California Endangered Species Act ("CESA"). Thus,
Take Authorization is required prior to the carrying out of otherwise lawful
activities that may "Take" one or more of these Covered Species.
C. The MSHCP establishes the conditions under which entities defined under the
Plan and its associated documents as "Permittees" will receive certain long-term
Take Authorizations and other assurances that will allow the taking of Covered
Species incidental to lawful uses authorized by the Permittees; and
D. The MSHCP provides for the assembly and management of a reserve for the
Conservation of natural Habitat and its constituent wildlife populations, and
establishes an overall Conservation Strategy for the MSHCP Plan Area that will
guarantee the protection of the Covered Species. The Conservation Strategy
includes the Conservation of the Covered Species, existing Habitat, the restoration
of degraded Habitat, managing a Reserve System, and conducting biological
monitoring in perpetuity.
E. The final MSHCP provides for the creation of a Reserve System that will
conserve and manage approximately 724,740 acres of Habitat for the 27 Covered
CRI
Species which includes approximately 534,200 acres of Existing Reserves (as of
2003) and 190,540 acres of Complementary Conservation and Additional
Conservation Lands. (Final MSHCP Errata, Table 4-1.)
F. The MSHCP will serve as a Habitat Conservation Plan ("HCP") pursuant to
Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA, as well as an NCCP pursuant to the NCCP Act of
2001, as amended. The approval of the MSHCP and execution of the IA allows
the CDFG and USFWS (collectively, the "Wildlife Agencies") to issue Take
Authorizations for Covered Species in the MSHCP Plan Area to the signatories of
the IA.
G. The MSHCP provides Take Authorization for Covered Activities for the Covered
Species. The MSHCP is "self -mitigating," meaning that most Project impacts are
reduced to below a level of significance as a result of implementation of MSHCP
components. Additionally, implementation of the management and Monitoring
Programs outlined in the MSHCP will further reduce all the potential
impacts/consequences of the MSHCP.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by CVAG that the Final EIR/EIS and the evidence in
the administrative record before it confirms that implementation of the MSHCP will result in no
significant adverse environmental impacts. For several impact areas, including Biological
Resources, Land Use and Planning, and Recreation, a separate component analyzing the Revised
Trails Plan is included.
A. Aesthetics (excluding Revised Trails Plan)
7
The MSHCP will result in the Conservation of approximately 724,740 acres of
Habitat and protect an array of scenic resources, thereby having a positive or
beneficial impact on aesthetics. (Final MSHCP Errata, Table 4-1; Final EIR/EIS,
p. 4-199.) The aesthetic impacts potentially associated with the implementation of
the MSHCP are primarily limited to those associated with the construction of new
trails and interpretive facilities such as kiosks. (Mid.) However, the MSHCP
provides guidelines for the planning and Development of new trails and public
access facilities which will avoid and minimize impacts. (Ibid.) The guidelines
prohibit the use of off -road vehicles and motorized access by non -emergency or
non -reserve management personnel, and restricts use of mountain bikes in some
locations. (Ibid.) Based upon these provisions, the MSHCP will not adversely
affect new trail and public access facilities, which can be conditioned as needed to
effectively mitigate potential impacts to visual resources in these areas. (Ibid.)
Accordingly, impacts on aesthetics are less than significant.
Agricultural Resources
Approximately 1,070 acres of the 84,900 acres of active agricultural use in the
Plan Area will be included in the Conservation Areas. (Final EIR/EIS, p. 4-45;
Major Issue Response 13.) Conversion of all of this land from agricultural use to
non-agricultural. use if it ever occurs could constitute a maximum potential loss of
1.4% of agricultural lands in the Plan Area. (Ibid.) All of the 1,070 acres of
agricultural land within the Conservation Areas are designated as "Farmland of
Local Importance" by the California Department of Conservation. (Ibid.) These
lands carry a heavy load of mineral salts from decades of irrigation. (Ibid.) Other
agricultural soils in this area occur on lands that have been converted into or are
planned for Development. (Ibid.) No other active or cultivatable land will be
impacted by the implementation of the Plan. (Final EIR/EIS, pp. 4-45 through
4-46.)
Additionally, the MSHCP will not impact any lands under Williamson Act
contracts nor will it preclude entering into such contracts in the future on lands
that are currently in active agriculture, whether such lands are located within or
outside of a Conservation Area. (Final EIR/EIS, p. 4-46; Major Issue Response
13.)
Finally, the Plan will not result in any changes in the physical or regulatory
environment that would significantly impact farmland or result in the conversion
of farmland to non-agricultural uses. (Final EIR/EIS, p. 4-46; Major Issue
Response 13.)
Therefore, given the minor impact to active agricultural lands and state -identified
farmlands with the potential for conversion to agricultural use, the Plan will have
a less than significant impact on agricultural lands.
C. Air Quality
The MSHCP Plan Area is located within the Salton Sea Air Basin. (Final
EIR/EIS, p. 4-184.) In and of itself, the MSHCP does not authorize future
Development. (Final EIR/EIS, p. 4-189.) However, Plan implementation may
cause future Development to be displaced to other areas in the Coachella Valley
9
rather than not occurring at all. (Final EIR/EIS, p. 4-188.) The location of where
this Development could be displaced is too speculative to analyze at this point.
(Ibid.) In addition, minor vehicular emissions may result from vehicle trips in
conjunction with biological monitoring and land management, or from persons
traveling to the Reserve System to recreate. (Ibid.) But the total number of vehicle
miles traveled will not increase significantly and will be statistically insignificant.
(Ibid.) Based on the foregoing, the Plan's effects on air quality are less than
significant.
D. Biological Resources (excluding Revised Trails Plan)
The intent of the MSHCP is to assure the protection in perpetuity of the Covered
Species, natural communities and overall biodiversity, and to protect functioning
ecosystems in the Plan Area. (Final EIR/EIS, p. 4-62.) The MSHCP provides
Take Authorization of Covered Species to Permittees for specified Covered
Activities. (Ibid.) The MSHCP takes a species -specific approach in determining
the requirements for the Conservation of each Covered Species.
Discussed below are the impacts to each Covered Species and the Plan features
that will reduce Project impacts to below a level of significance.
1. Impacts to Mecca aster (Xylorhiza cognata). Individuals occurring
outside the Conservation Areas will be subject to Habitat loss, including
those occurring east of the Coachella Canal in the Mecca Hills. (Final
EIR/EIS, p. 4-68.) Approximately 6,295 acres (10%) of all Habitat and
30% of non-federal lands will be subject to Habitat loss under the
10
MSHCP. (Ibid.) Approximately 1,346 acres (2%) of this is Core Habitat
subject to Habitat loss under the Plan. (Ibid.) However, the remote
locations and lack of threats make it unlikely that these levels of Habitat
loss will ever occur. (Final EIR/EIS, p. 4-69.)
Features of the MSHCP that will reduce Project Impacts. The MSHCP
ensures Conservation of Core Habitat in five Conservation Areas, and
protects Other Conserved Habitat in two Conservation Areas across a
range of environmental conditions within which the species occurs.
(MSHCP, Table 4-116.) The MSHCP also implements biological
monitoring and Adaptive Management to identify threats and to ensure
Conservation of this species. (Ibid.) All of these actions will conserve this
species in perpetuity. (Ibid.) Conservation under the Plan includes 11,441
acres of Core Habitat in the Thousand Palms Conservation Area, 5,836
acres of Core Habitat in the Indio Hills Palms Conservation Area, 1,539
acres of Core Habitat in the East Indio Hills Conservation Area, 4,525
acres of Core Habitat in the Desert Tortoise and Linkage Conservation
Area, and 30,890 acres of Core Habitat in the Mecca Hills/Orocopia
Mountains Conservation Area. (Final MSHCP, Table 9-lb.) Including
Other Conserved Habitat in other Conservation Areas, the total Habitat to
be conserved for this species in the Reserve System is 54,421 acres, or
86% of all Mecca aster Habitat in the Plan Area (98% of Core Habitat).
(Final MSHCP Tables 4-114 and 4-116.) The Plan will also control and
11
manage activities that degrade this species' Habitat. (Final MSHCP, Table
4-116.)
Based on the above, impacts to the Mecca aster will be less than
significant and the benefits conferred by the Plan will protect adequate
unfragmented Habitat, maintain Essential Ecological Processes to sustain
the Habitat, and protect Biological Corridors and Linkages, as appropriate.
2. Impacts to the Coachella Valley milkvetch — Astragalus lendginosus
var. coachellae. Individuals occurring outside of the MSHCP
Conservation Area will be subject to Habitat loss. (Final EIR/EIS, p.
4-63.) Approximately 15,400 acres (42%) of all Habitat and 51% of the
non -Federal lands will be subject to Habitat loss under the MSHCP. (Ibid.)
There will be approximately 927 acres (6%) of Core Habitat subject to
Habitat loss under the MSHCP. (Ibid.)
Features of the MSHCP that will reduce Project Impacts. Within the
Plan Area, the MSHCP will conserve all remaining populations of this
species where Essential Ecological Processes are intact. (Ibid.)
Approximately 2,385 acres of Core Habitat will be conserved in the Snow
Creek/Windy Point, 5,294 acres in the Whitewater Floodplain
Conservation Area, 2,884 acres in the Willow Hole Conservation Area,
and 4,276 acres in the Thousand Palms Conservation Area. (Final
MSHCP, Table 9-la and 9-lb.) To protect the species in the range of
environmental conditions in which it occurs, a total of 4,474 acres of
12
Other Conserved Habitat will be protected in the Stubbe and Cottonwood
Canyons, Whitewater Canyon, Highway I11/I-10, Upper Mission
Creek/Big Morongo Canyon, Edom Hill, Indio Hills/Joshua Tree National
Park Linkage, and Joshua Tree National Park Conservation Areas. (Final
MSHCP, Table 9-4). In total, the Plan will ensure protection and
management in perpetuity of 11,637 acres of Habitat for this species,
which, together with Existing Conservation Land, will result in
approximately 19,313 acres of Habitat for this species being conserved
under the MSHCP. (Final MSHCP, Table 4-114.) This includes 94% of
the Core Habitat. (Final MSHCP, Table 4-116.) The MSHCP will also
secure the sand source/transport systems for the Core Habitat areas, and
will control and manage activities that degrade this species' Habitat, such
as sand compaction and/or vegetation destruction, including from OHV
travel and other human disturbance. (Ibid.) The Plan will also implement
biological monitoring and Adaptive Management measures to address
various threats to the species and to ensure long-term persistence of this
species. (Ibid.)
Thus, impacts to the Coachella Valley milkvetch under the MSHCP will
be less than significant and the benefits conferred by the Plan will protect
adequate unfragmented Habitat, maintain Essential Ecological Processes
to sustain the Habitat, and protect Biological Corridors and Linkages, as
appropriate.
13
3. Impacts to the triple -ribbed milkvetch — Astragalus tricarinatus.
Approximately 164 acres (5%) of all Habitat and 11 % of non-federal lands
will be subject to Habitat loss under the MSHCP. (Final EIR/EIS, p. 4-64.)
There will be approximately 88 acres (4%) of Core Habitat subject to
Habitat loss under the Plan. (Final EIR/EIS, p. 4-65.)
Features of the MSHCP that will reduce Project Impacts. All known
occurrences of triple -ribbed milkvetch will be conserved, along with the
adjacent lands in Whitewater Canyon and Mission Creek. (]bid.) In total,
2,838 acres (94% of all Habitat in the Plan Area, including 33 of the 34
known locations, and 96% of the Core Habitat, including Core Habitat in
the Whitewater Canyon and Upper Mission Creek/Big Morongo Canyon
Conservation Areas) will be included in the Reserve System. (Final
MSHCP, Tables 4-114 and 4-116.) The MSHCP will protect Essential
Ecological Processes, including hydrological regimes, necessary to
maintain Habitat for this species. (Final MSHCP, Table 4-116.) The
MSHCP will also implement biological monitoring and Adaptive
Management to identify and address various threats to the species and to
ensure long-term persistence of this species. (]bid.)
In addition, the Required Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation
Measures discussed at Section 4.4 of the MSHCP require that, for most
Covered Activities within the modeled triple-milkvetch Habitat in
Whitewater Canyon, Whitewater Floodplain, Upper Mission Creek/Big
Morongo Canyon, and Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains
14
Conservation Areas, surveys by an Acceptable Biologist will be required
for activities during the growing and flowering period from February 1 -
May 15. (Final MSHCP, p. 4-201.1) Any occurrences of the species will
be flagged and public infrastructure projects shall avoid impacts to the
plants to the maximum extent possible. (Ibid.) Known occurrences on a
map maintained by CVCC shall not be disturbed. (Ibid.)
Based on the above, impacts to triple -ribbed milkvetch under the MSHCP
will be less than significant and the benefits conferred by the Plan will
protect adequate unfragmented Habitat, maintain Essential Ecological
Processes to sustain the Habitat, and protect Biological Corridors and
Linkages, as appropriate.
4. Impacts to Orocopia sage (Salvia greatae). Individuals occurring outside
the Conservation Areas will be subject to Habitat loss, including those
occurring on the east side of the Mecca Hills. (Final EIWEIS, p. 4-70.)
Approximately 6,943 acres (9%) of all Habitat and 28% of non-federal
lands will be subject to Habitat loss under the MSHCP. (Final MSHCP,
Table 4-114.)
Features of the MSHCP that will reduce Project Impacts. The MSHCP
ensures Conservation of Core Habitat in two Conservation Areas, and
protects Other Conserved Habitat in another Conservation Area across a
range of environmental conditions within which the species occurs. (Final
' All references to the Final MSHCP are accurate as of January 25, 2006, but may be subject to change.
15
MSHCP, Table 4-116.) The MSHCP also implements biological
monitoring and Adaptive Management to identify threats and to ensure
Conservation of this species. (Ibid.) All of these actions will conserve this
species in perpetuity. (Ibid.) Conservation under the Plan includes 735
acres of Core Habitat in the Desert Tortoise and Linkage Conservation
Area, 64,077 acres of Core Habitat in the Mecca Hills/Orocopia
Mountains Conservation Area, and 3,559 acres of Other Conserved
Habitat in the Dos Palmas Conservation Area. (Final MSHCP, Table
9-lb.) The total of Habitat for this species to be conserved in the Reserve
System is 68,371 acres, or 87% of all Orocopia sage Habitat in the Plan
Area (97% of Core Habitat). (Final MSHCP, Tables 4-114 and 4-116.)
Threats to the species and its Habitat are minimal. (Final EIR/EIS, p. 71.)
The Plan will also control and manage activities that degrade this species'
Habitat, such as OHV activity and other activities that could damage
plants and their Habitat. (Final MSHCP, Table 4-116.)
Regarding the Covered Activities that may affect this species, such
activities will disturb an insignificant amount of acreage, resulting in
enough Conserved Habitat to maintain the plant in perpetuity. (Final
EIR/EIS, p. 4-71.)
Based on the above, impacts to the orocopia sage will be less than
significant and the benefits conferred by the Plan will protect adequate
unfragmented Habitat, maintain Essential Ecological Processes to sustain
the Habitat, and protect Biological Corridors and Linkages, as appropriate.
16
5. Impacts to the Little San Bernardino Mountains linanthus (Linanthus
maculates or Gilia maculate). Approximately 479 acres (14%) of all
Habitat will be subject to Habitat loss under the MSHCP. (Final MSHCP,
Table 4-114.) This is 16% of the non-federal lands in the Plan Area. (Final
EIR/EIS, p. 4-67.) There will be approximately 217 acres (9%) of Core
Habitat subject to Habitat loss under the Plan (0 acres outside and 217
acres inside Conservation Areas). ([bid.)
Features of the MSHCP that will reduce Project Impacts. The Plan
conserves large blocks of Habitat for linanthus in the Upper Mission
Creek/Big Morongo Canyon Conservation Area totaling 2,120 acres of
Core Habitat in the Upper Mission Creek/Big Morongo Canyon
Conservation Area, which has also been designed to preserve the braided
streams and associated micro -topographic features to which this plant is
adapted, 540 acres of Other Conserved Habitat in the Whitewater Canyon
Conservation Area, and 246 acres of Other Conserved Habitat in the
Willow Hole Conservation Area. (Final MSHCP, Table 9-1 a.) This is a
total of approximately 2,906 acres (86% of all Habitat for this species in
the Plan Area) to be conserved in the Reserve System. (Final MSHCP,
Table 4-114.) The Plan also requires that the fluvial processes that sustain
Habitat for the linanthus be maintained. (Final EIR/EIS, p. 4-67.) The Plan
will also control and manage activities that degrade linanthus Habitat,
such as vehicular travel in washes and other activities that could damage
plants and their Habitat. (Final MSHCP, Table 4-116.) The Plan will also
17
implement biological monitoring and Adaptive Management measures to
identify and address various threats to the species and to ensure long-term
persistence of this species. (]bid.)
Based on the above, impacts .to the Little San Bernardino ' Mountains
linanthus will be less than significant and the benefits conferred by the
Plan will protect adequate unfragmented Habitat, maintain Essential
Ecological Processes to sustain the Habitat, and protect Biological
Corridors and Linkages, as appropriate.
6. Impacts to the Coachella Valley giant sand -treader cricket
(Macrobaenetes valgum). Individuals occurring outside the Conservation
Areas will be subject to Take Authorization, including those occurring on
the Big Dune. (Final EIR/EIS, p. 4-72.) Approximately 13,670 acres
(50%) of all Habitat and 61% of non-federal lands will be subject to Take
under the MSHCP. (Ibid.) There will be approximately 530 acres (5%) of
Core Habitat subject to Take Authorization under the MSHCP. (Ibid.)
Nearly all (94%) of the Take will be outside Conservation Areas, such as
on Big Dune (Palm Springs Sand Ridge), where the blowsand Habitat is
shielded. (Ibid.)
Features of the MSHCP that will reduce Project Impacts. The MSHCP
ensures Conservation of Core Habitat in three Conservation Areas, and
protects Other Conserved Habitat in four Conservation Areas across a
range of environmental conditions within which the species occurs. (Final
MSHCP, Table 4-116.) The MSHCP also ensures Conservation of
Essential Ecological Processes including sand source/transport systems,
and implements biological monitoring and Adaptive Management to
identify threats and to ensure Conservation of this species. (Ibid.) All of
these actions will conserve this species in perpetuity. (Ibid.) Conservation
under the Plan includes 1,243 acres of Core Habitat in the Snow
Creek/Windy Point Conservation Area, 5,278 acres of Core Habitat in the
Whitewater Floodplain Conservation Area, 3,854 acres of Core Habitat in
the Thousand Palms Conservation Area, 1,594 acres of Other Conserved
Habitat in the Willow Hole Conservation Area, 3 acres of Other
Conserved Habitat in the Thousand Palms Conservation Area, 98 acres of
Other Conserved Habitat in the Edom Hill Conservation Area, 839 acres
of Other Conserved Habitat in the East Indio Hills Conservation Area, and
112 acres of Other Conserved Habitat in the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto
Mountains Conservation Area. (Final MSHCP, Tables 9-la and 9-lb.) The
total of Habitat for this species to be conserved in the Reserve System is
13,021 acres, or 48% of all Coachella Valley giant sand -treader cricket
Habitat in the Plan Area (95% of Core Habitat). (Final MSHCP, Tables
4-114 and 4-116.) The Plan will also control and manage activities that
degrade Habitat for this species, such as OHV activity and other activities
that can kill individuals or damage their Habitat. (Final MSHCP, Table
4-116.)
19
Based on the above, impacts to the Coachella Valley giant sand -treader
cricket will be less than significant and the benefits conferred by the Plan
will protect adequate unfragmented Habitat, maintain Essential Ecological
Processes to sustain the Habitat, and protect Biological Corridors and
Linkages, as appropriate.
7. Impacts to the Coachella Valley Jerusalem cricket (Stenopelmatus
cahuilaensis). Individuals occurring outside the Conservation Areas will
be subject to Take, including those occurring on the Big Dune. (Final
EIR/EIS, p. 4-74.) Approximately 9,992 acres (44%) of all Habitat and
49% of non -Federal lands will be subject to Take Authorization under the
MSHCP. (Ibid.) Nearly all - (96%) of the Take will be outside the
Conservation Areas,. where the Habitat is less likely to be occupied. (Final
MSHCP, Tables 4-114 and 4-116.) There will be approximately 150 acres
(9%) of Core Habitat subject to Take Authorization under the Plan. (Ibid.)
Features of the MSHCP that will reduce Project Impacts. The MSHCP
protects a contiguous Habitat in the Snow Creek/Windy Point
Conservation Area, which appears to be the center of this species'
distribution, and which will create a preserve of sufficient size to conserve
this species in perpetuity. (Final MSHCP, Table 4-116.) The MSHCP also
protects Other Conserved Habitat in six Conservation Areas across a range
of environmental conditions within which -the species occurs. (Ibid.) The
MSHCP also ensures Conservation of Essential Ecological Processes
including sand source/transport systems; maintains Biological Corridors
20
and Linkages to allow connectivity and shifts in distribution over time;
and implements biological monitoring and Adaptive Management to
identify threats and to ensure Conservation of this species. (Ibid.) All of
these actions will conserve this species in perpetuity. ([bid.) Conservation
under the Plan includes 1,540 acres of Core Habitat in the Snow
Creek/Windy Point Conservation Area, and a total of 10,428 acres of
Other Conserved Habitat in eleven Conservation Areas. (Ibid.) The total of
Habitat for this species to be conserved in the Reserve System is 11,968
acres, or 52% of all Coachella Valley Jerusalem cricket Habitat in the Plan
Area (91 % of Core Habitat). (Final MSHCP, Tables 4-116.)
Based on the above, impacts to the Jerusalem cricket are less than
significant and the benefits conferred by the Plan will protect adequate
unfragmented Habitat, maintain Essential Ecological Processes to sustain
the Habitat, and protect Biological Corridors and Linkages, as appropriate.
8. Impacts to the desert pupfish (Cyprinodon macularius). Individuals
occurring outside the Conservation Areas will be subject to Take,
including those occurring in shoreline pools of the Salton Sea. (Final
EIR/EIS, P. 4-77.) In addition, individuals occurring in the drains will be
subject to Take by CVWD for ongoing maintenance activities in the
drains. (Ibid.)
Features of the MSHCP that will reduce Project Impacts. The Plan
will ensure that existing desert pupfish Habitat and refugia populations are
21
protected and managed. (Final MSHCP, Table 4-116.) The Plan conserves
100% of the 31 known locations for the species. (Ibid.) This includes
Conservation of agricultural drains and shoreline pools. (Ibid.) The
MSHCP will protect Core Habitat in Salt Creek in the Dos Palmas
Conservation Area and in the agricultural drains in the Coachella Valley
Stormwater Channel and Delta Conservation Area, and will protect refugia
populations in the Thousand Palms Conservation Area and the Dos Palmas
Conservation Area. (Ibid.) In addition, the Plan requires CVWD to prepare
a Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan for desert pupfish within
one year of Permit issuance to assure long-term viability of pupfish in the
agricultural drains leading into the Salton Sea. (Ibid.; Final MSHCP, p.
4-77.) This Monitoring Program will result in updated information on the
existing pupfish populations in the Salton Sink. (Ibid.) The Plan also
requires CVWD to establish 25 acres of artificial pupfish Habitat. (Final
EIR/EIS, p. 4-78.)
Based on the above, impacts to the desert pupfish are less than significant
and the benefits conferred by the Plan will protect adequate unfragmented
Habitat, maintain Essential Ecological Processes to sustain the Habitat,
and protect Biological Corridors and Linkages, as appropriate.
9. Impacts to the arroyo toad (Bufo californicus). Individuals occurring
outside the Conservation Areas will be subject to Take, including those
occurring in the Bonnie Bell area. (Final EIR/EIS, p. 4-79.)
Approximately 88 acres (4%) of all Arroyo toad Habitat and 11 % of non-
22
Federal lands will be subject to Take Authorization under the MSHCP.
(Ib1d.)
Features of the MSHCP that will reduce Project Impacts. Pursuant to
the recommendations of the Recovery Plan for the arroyo toad, the
MSHCP calls for acquisition and management of key Habitat in
Whitewater Canyon. (Final EIR/EIS, p. 4-80.) The MSHCP will result in
the Conservation of 2,007 acres of arroyo toad Habitat, including 2,004
acres of Core Habitat in the Whitewater Canyon Conservation Area, and 3
acres of Other Conserved Habitat in the Upper Mission Creek/Big
Morongo Canyon Conservation Area. (Final MSHCP, Table 4-116.) The
2,007 acres of Conserved Habitat is 96% of all arroyo toad Habitat, (and
96% of the Core Habitat) in the Plan Area. (Ibid.) The MSHCP will
protect Essential Ecological Processes, including hydrological regimes,
necessary to maintain Habitat for this species. (Ibid.) The MSHCP will
also implement biological monitoring and Adaptive Management to
identify and address various threats to the species and to ensure long-term
persistence of this species. (Ibid.)
Based on the above, impacts to the arroyo toad are less than significant
and the benefits conferred by the Plan will protect adequate unfragmented
Habitat, maintain Essential Ecological Processes to sustain the Habitat,
and protect Biological Corridors and Linkages, as appropriate.
23
10. Impacts to the desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii). Individuals
occurring outside the Conservation Areas will be subject to Take,
including those occurring east of Hwy 62 and east of Dillon Rd to the
boundary with Joshua Tree National Park. (Final EIR/EIS, p. 4-87.)
Approximately 66,457 acres (12%) of all Habitat and 28% of non -Federal
lands will be subject to Take Authorization under the MSHCP. (Final
MSHCP, Tables 4-114 and 4-116.) There will be approximately 11,711
acres (3%) of Core Habitat subject to Take Authorization under the Plan.
(Final EIR/EIS, p. 4-87.)
Features of the MSHCP that will reduce Project Impacts. Ninety-
seven percent of the Critical Habitat in the eastern Plan Area will be
conserved for desert tortoise and 86% of the occupied or potential Habitat.
is conserved under the Plan. (Final MSHCP, Table 4-116.) The MSHCP
will result in the Conservation of approximately 146,723 acres of modeled
Habitat together with Existing Conservation Land or a total of 492,377
acres conserved, including 365,748 acres of Core Habitat. (Final MSHCP,
Table 9-15.) The MSHCP ensures Conservation of Core Habitat in seven
Conservation Areas from western to eastern parts of the Plan Area. (Final
MSHCP, Table 4-116.) The MSHCP also maintains. Biological Corridors
and Linkages to ensure connectivity between Conservation Areas and with
Habitat outside the Plan Area, and implements biological monitoring and
Adaptive Management to identify threats and to ensure Conservation of
this species. (Ibid.) All of these actions will conserve this species in
24
perpetuity. (Ibid.) Conservation under the Plan includes 5,482 acres of
Core Habitat in the Stubbe and Cottonwood Canyons Conservation Area,
4,374 acres of Core Habitat in the Whitewater Canyon Conservation Area,
27,128 acres of Core Habitat in the Upper Mission Creek/Big Morongo
Canyon Conservation Area, 9,449 acres of Core Habitat in the Indio
Hills/Joshua Tree National Park Linkage Conservation Area, 125,453
acres of Core Habitat in the Joshua Tree National Park Conservation Area,
84,211 acres of Core Habitat in the Desert Tortoise and Linkage
Conservation. Area, and 109,651 acres of Core Habitat in the Mecca
Hills/Orocopia Mountains Conservation Area. (Final MSHCP, Table
9-15.) The MSHCP protects a total of 126,629 acres of Other Conserved
Habitat in fourteen Conservation Areas across a range of environmental
conditions within which the species occurs. (Ibid.) The total of Habitat for
this species to be conserved in the Reserve System is 492,377 acres, or
86% of all desert tortoise Habitat in the Plan Area (97% of the designated
Critical Habitat in the eastern portion of the Plan Area). (Final MSHCP,
Table 4-116.) The Plan will also control and manage activities that
degrade Habitat for this species, such as OHV activity and other activities
that can kill individuals or damage their Habitat. (Final MSHCP, pp. 9-104
through 9-105.)
In addition, the Plan addresses recovery units within the Plan Area that
were identified by the Desert Tortoise Recovery Plan in 1994. (Final
EIR/EIS, p. 4-88.) This Recovery Plan recommended establishment of the
25
Joshua Tree National Park Desert Wildlife Management Area ("DWMA")
and the Chuckwalla DWMA, both of which fall within the Plan Area of
the MSHCP. (Ibid.)
In addition, Section 4.4 of the MSHCP (Required Avoidance,
Minimization, and Mitigation Measures) provides additional Conservation
protection. That provision requires that, under most circumstances, the
Permittees will conduct surveys for desert tortoise before initiation of
Development or Operations and .Maintenance ("O&M") activities in
modeled desert tortoise Habitat within Conservation Areas. (Final
MSHCP, p. 4-195.) The Plan provides a specific procedure for such
surveys.
i
The Plan also has developed two utility development protocols (active
season and inactive season) to avoid or minimize potential adverse
impacts to the desert tortoise in the Conservation Areas from utility and
road right-of-way projects. (Final MSHCP, pp. 4-196 through 4-200.)
Based on the above, impacts to the desert tortoise are less than significant
and the benefits conferred by the Plan will protect adequate unfragmented
Habitat, maintain Essential Ecological. Processes to sustain the Habitat,
and protect Biological Corridors and Linkages, as appropriate.
11. Impacts to ' the Coachella Valley fringe -toed lizard (Uma inornata).
Individuals occurring outside the Conservation Areas will be subject to
Take, including those occurring on the Big Dune. (Final EIR/EIS, P. 4-81.)
26
Approximately 13,670 acres (50%) of all Habitat and 61 % of non -Federal
lands will be subject to Take Authorization under Plan. (Ibid.) (Final
MSHCP, Table 4-114.) There will be approximately 603 acres (5%) of
Core Habitat subject to Take Authorization under the MSHCP. (Ibid.)
Features of the MSHCP that will reduce Project Impacts. The
Coachella Valley fringe -toed lizard Recovery Plan was established in
1985, recommending over 50 measures that could be taken to lead to
recovery of the lizard. (Ibid.) The MSHCP will meet or exceed the
standards of this recovery plan by creating and implementing
Conservation measures in the Conservation Areas. (Final EIR/EIS, p.
4-82.) The MSHCP will result in the Conservation of 7,054 acres of
modeled Habitat together with Existing Conservation Land for a total of
13,022 acres conserved, including 11,199 acres (95%) of Core Habitat.
(Final MSHCP, Table 9-16; p. 9-122; Table 4-116.). This includes 1,244
acres of Core Habitat in Snow Creek/Windy Point Conservation Area,
5,278 acres of Core Habitat in Whitewater Floodplain Conservation Area,
823 acres of Core Habitat at Willow Hole Conservation Area, and 3,854
acres of Core Habitat in Thousand Palms Conservation Area. (Draft
MSHCP, Table 9-1a.) In addition, the MSHCP will conserve 1,823 acres
of Other Conserved Habitat in five Conservation Areas, representing a
range of environmental conditions in which the species occurs. (Final
MSHCP, Table 9-16.) The Plan will also conserve the scattered blowsand
deposits and occupied Habitat in the Indio Hills. (Final EIR/EIS, p. 4-83.)
27
The Plan also employs measures to protect and maintain Essential
Ecological Processes . for sand transport to the new Conservation Areas,
and provides Linkages between these Areas. (Final EIR/EIS, p. 4-83.)
Furthermore, -the Plan requires CVCC, CVAG and CalTrans to acquire
1,795 acres for interchange and arterial road Covered Activities listed in
Table 7-1 of the MSHCP. (Final EIR/EIS, p. 4-84.)
Adaptive Management implemented by the Plan includes several measures
that will forestall or prevent extirpation in a Conservation Area. (Ibid.)
Such measures include the establishment of "sand fences" to trap sand
upwind in armored Habitat and create blowsand hummocks for expansion
of the extant population. (Ibid.) Other measures which may be utilized as
appropriate include hauling sand upwind, destabilizing armored deposits
by physically removing vegetation and surface crusts, controlling exotic
plant species and feral animals, and re -introduction of fringe -toed lizards
into areas where they may be extirpated or into restored sites. (Ibid.)
Based on the above, impacts to the Coachella Valley fringe -toed lizard are
less than significant and the benefits conferred by the Plan will protect
adequate unfragmented Habitat, maintain Essential Ecological Processes
to sustain the Habitat, and protect Biological Corridors and Linkages, as
appropriate.
12. Impacts to flat -tailed horned lizard (Phrynosoma mcallii). Individuals
occurring outside the Conservation Areas will be subject to Take,
28
including those occurring on the Big Dune. (Final EIR/EIS, p. 4-91.)
Approximately 17,507 acres (54%) of all predicted Habitat, 65% of non -
Federal predicted Habitat lands, 1,734 acres (34%) of all potential Habitat
and 41% of all potential Habitat on non -Federal lands will be subject to
Take under MSHCP. (Ibid.) There will be approximately 96 acres (2%) of
Core Habitat subject to Take under the Plan. (Ibid.)
Features of the MSHCP that will reduce Project Impacts. The MSHCP
will result in the Conservation of 7,475 acres of modeled Habitat together
with Existing Conservation Land for a total of 13,947 acres conserved.
(Final MSHCP, p. 9-13; Table 9-17.) Only one area of the MSHCP was
delineated as Core Habitat for this species, at the Thousand Palms
Preserve. (Final MSHCP, p. 9-136.) The Planning Team for this Plan
delineated approximately 4,131 acres as Core Habitat. (Ibid.)
Conservation Objectives ensure the Conservation of at least 4,035 acres in
the Thousand Palms Conservation Area. (Ibid.) In addition, the MSHCP
will conserve approximately 689 acres of Other Conserved Habitat in East
Indio Hills and 5,048 acres of Other Conserved Habitat in Dos Palmas.
(Final MSHCP, Tables 9-17.)
The MSHCP will also: Protect Other Conserved Habitat in a total of five
Conservation Areas representing the range of environmental conditions
within which this species occurs; Ensure Conservation of Essential
Ecological Processes including sand source/transport systems; Maintain
Biological Corridors and Linkages among conserved populations or
29
Habitats; and Implement biological monitoring and Adaptive Management
to ensure Conservation of this species. (Final MSHCP, Table 4-116.)
Based on the above, impacts to the flat -tailed horned lizard are less than
significant and the benefits conferred by the Plan will protect adequate
unfragmented Habitat, maintain Essential Ecological Processes to sustain
the Habitat, and protect Biological Corridors and Linkages, as appropriate.
13. Impacts to the Yuma clapper rail (Rallus longirostris yumanensis).
Individuals occurring outside the Conservation Areas will be subject to
Take. (Final EIR/EIS, p. 4-115.) Approximately 62 acres (9%) of all
Habitat and 13% of non -Federal lands will be subject to Take under the
Plan. (Ibid.)
Features of the MSHCP that will reduce Project Impacts. This bird is
found only in the Dos Palmas and Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel
and Delta Conservation Areas. Implementation of the Plan will provide for
persistence of the Yuma clapper rail within the Plan Area, as currently
unprotected portions of its Habitat and potential Habitat areas will be
conserved. (Final MSHCP, p. 9-146.) Ninety-one percent of the modeled
clapper rail Habitat will be conserved under the Plan. (Final MSHCP,
Table 4-116.) The MSHCP will result in the Conservation of 413 acres of
modeled Habitat together with Existing Conservation Land for a total of
643 conserved acres. (Ibid.) In addition, the CVWD will establish 66 acres
of permanent replacement rail Habitat. (Final MSHCP, Table 4-116.)
30
Management and Monitoring activities will be implemented to ensure
Conservation of this species, including control of activities that degrade
Habitat. (Ibid.) Biological monitoring and Adaptive Management will be
implemented to ensure Conservation, and Essential Ecological Processes
will be protected, including the regimes necessary to maintain rail Habitat.
(Ibid.) Finally, because this rail is a California Fully Protected Species, the
required surveys will be conducted in accordance with law. (Ibid.)
Based on the above, impacts to the Yuma clapper rail are less than
significant and the benefits conferred by the Plan will protect adequate
unfragmented Habitat, maintain Essential Ecological Processes to sustain
the habitat, and protect Biological Corridors and Linkages, as appropriate.
14. Impacts to the California black rail (Laterallus jamaicensis
coturniculus). Individuals occurring outside the Conservation Areas will
be subject to Take, including any occurring in the Coachella Valley
Stormwater Channel. (Final EIR/EIS, p. 4-96.) Approximately 62 acres
(9%) of all Habitat and 13% of non -Federal lands will be subject to Take
under the Plan. (Ibid.)
Features of the MSHCP that will reduce Project Impacts. This bird is
found only in the Dos Palmas and Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel
and Delta Conservation Areas. Implementation of the Plan will provide for
persistence of the California black rail within the Plan Area, as currently
unprotected portions of its Habitat and potential Habitat areas will be
01
conserved. (Final MSHCP, p. 9-153.) Ninety-one percent of the modeled
clapper rail Habitat will be conserved under the Plan. (Final MSHCP,
Table 4-116.) The MSHCP will result in the Conservation of 413 acres of
modeled Habitat together with Existing Conservation Land for a total of
643 conserved acres. (Ibid.) In addition, the Coachella Valley Water
District ("CVWD"). will establish 66 acres of permanent replacement rail
Habitat. Management and Monitoring activities would be implemented to
ensure Conservation of this species, including control of activities that
degrade Habitat. (Ibid.) Biological monitoring and Adaptive Management
will be implemented to ensure Conservation, and Essential Ecological
Processes will be protected, including hydrological regimes necessary to
maintain rail Habitat. (Ibid.) Finally, because this rail is a California Fully
Protected Species, the required surveys will be conducted in accordance
with law. (Final MSHCP, p. 9-152.)
Given the level of Conservation, which includes establishment of
permanent riparian Habitat and expansion of the marsh Habitat, all
impacts are considered beneficial. Based on the above, impacts to the
California black rail are less than significant and the benefits conferred by
the Plan will protect adequate unfragmented Habitat, maintain Essential
Ecological Processes to sustain the Habitat, and protect Biological
Corridors and Linkages, as appropriate.
15. Impacts to the burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia). Impacts to
burrowing owl are very difficult to predict, given the limited knowledge
32
on their distribution and abundance in the Plan Area, and their ability to
relocate when established nesting sites are lost, which are often in
agricultural and urban areas. (Final EIR/EIS, p. 4-94.) However, it is
estimated that 45% of known locations for burrowing owl will be subject
to Take in areas compromised by fragmentation, Development, and
associated impacts. (Final MSHCP, Table 4-116.)
Features of the MSHCP that will reduce Project Impacts. The reserve
design process focused on inclusion of areas of contiguous Habitat in
areas where burrowing owls are known to occur. (Final MSHCP, Table
4-116.) The MSHCP will result in the Conservation of 41 of the 74 known
locations of burrowing owl, which include foraging areas. (Ibid.) These
locations include areas in Snow Creek, Whitewater Floodplain Preserve,
the Mission Creek area west of Highway 62, the Willow Hole-Edom Hill
Preserve/ACEC area, the Thousand Palms Preserve, including the sand
source area, and significant portions of the Indio Hills and Mecca Hills.
(Ibid.) Overall the 724,740 acre Reserve System will contain sufficient
Habitat to maintain a viable population of burrowing owls within the Plan
Area. (Final EIR/EIS, p. 4-94.)
The Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures listed in Section
4.4 of the MSHCP will minimize Take of burrowing owls. (Final EIR/EIS,
p. 4-94.) In total, the Plan ensures the Conservation of burrowing owls
within nine Conservation Areas, and the protection of Other Conserved
Habitat in ten Conservation Areas. (Final MSHCP, Table 4-116.)
33
Biological monitoring and Adaptive Management will also be
implemented to ensure Conservation of this species. (Ibid.)
Based on the above, impacts to the burrowing owl are less than significant
and the benefits conferred by the Plan will protect adequate unfragmented
Habitat, maintain Essential Ecological Processes to sustain the Habitat,
and protect Biological Corridors and Linkages, as appropriate. Thus, no
mitigation measures are necessary.
16. Impacts to the Southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii
extimus). Individuals occurring outside the Conservation Areas will be
subject to Take, including those in migratory Habitat east of the Coachella
Canal and in a small portion of Dos Palmas. (Final EIR/EIS, p. 4-106.)
Approximately 168 acres (6%) of all breeding Habitat (11 % on non -
Federal lands) and 15,278 acres (26%) of migratory Habitat (4.2% on non -
Federal lands) will be subject to Take under the MSHCP. (Ibid.)
Features of the MSHCP that will reduce Project Impacts. Ninety-four
percent of the modeled willow flycatcher breeding Habitat and 72% of the
modeled willow flycatcher migratory Habitat is conserved under the Plan.
(Final MSHCP, Table 4-116.) Permittees will protect and manage 1,037
acres of modeled breeding Habitat together with Existing Conservation
Land for a total of 2,563 acres of breeding Habitat conserved. (Final
MSHCP, Table 4-114.) The MSHCP will result in the Conservation of
19,638 acres of modeled migratory Habitat together with Existing
34
Conservation Land for a total of 40,924 acres of migratory Habitat
conserved. (Ibid.) The Conservation Areas in the Plan will protect 99% of
the occupied and potential breeding Habitat and 76% of the potential
migratory Habitat for this species. (Ibid.)
The Plan will also provide permanent protection to riparian Habitat via
acquisition and management in several Conservation Areas and establish
permanent riparian Habitat in the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel
and Delta Conservation Area. (Final EIR/EIS, p. 4-106.) CVWD will
establish 44 acres of permanent Sonoran cottonwood -willow riparian
forest in the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel and Delta
Conservation area as described in Section 4.3.20 of the MSHCP. (Final
MSHCP, Table 4-116.) In addition, the Plan requires that, where
disturbance of a given number of acres of a riparian natural community is
authorized, an equivalent number of acres will be replaced to ensure that
no net loss occurs. (Ibid.)
Implementation of biological monitoring and Adaptive Management will
also take place to ensure Conservation of the vireo. (Ibid.) Essential
Ecological Processes will also be protected, including hydrological
regimes necessary to maintain riparian Habitat. In addition, the Required
Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures of Section 4.4 of the
MSHCP require that Covered Activities, including construction and O&M
activities, in riparian Habitat of the Cabazon, Stubbe and Cottonwood
Canyons, Whitewater Canyon, Upper Mission Creek/Big Morongo
35
Canyon, Thousand Palms, Indio Hills Palms, Joshua Tree National Park,
Mecca Hills and Orocopia Mountains, Dos Palmas, Coachella Valley
Stormwater Channel and Delta, and Santa Rosa and San Jacinto
Mountains Conservation Areas, will be conducted to the maximum extent
Feasible outside of the May 1 — September 15 nesting season for
Southwestern willow flycatcher. (Final MSHCP, p. 4-195.) If Covered
Activities must occur during the nesting season, surveys shall be
conducted to determine if, any active nests are present. (Ibid.) If active
nests are identified, the Covered Activity shall not be conducted within
200 feet of an active nest. (Ibid.) If surveys conducted during the nesting
season document that Covered nesting riparian bird Species are not
present, the Covered Activity may proceed. (Ibid.)
Based on the above, impacts to the Southwestern willow flycatcher are
less than significant and the benefits conferred by the Plan will protect
adequate unfragmented Habitat, maintain Essential Ecological Processes
to sustain the Habitat, and protect Biological Corridors and Linkages, as
appropriate.
17. Impacts to the crissal thrasher (Toxostoma crissale). Individuals
occurring outside the Conservation Areas will be subject to Take,
including those occurring on lands in the south portion of the valley near
the Salton Sea. (Final EIR/EIS, p. 4-99.) Approximately 5,113 acres
(75%) of all Habitat and 76% of non -Federal lands will be subject to Take
36
under the Plan. (Ibid.) There will be approximately 131 acres (9%) of Core
Habitat subject to Take under the Plan. (Ibid.)
Features of the MSHCP that will reduce Project Impacts. The MSHCP
will result in the Conservation of 1,480 acres of modeled Habitat together
with Existing Conservation Land for a total of 1,738 acres of land
conserved. (Final MSHCP, Table 4-116.) Approximately 91 % of the Core
Habitat for this species will be conserved under the Plan, including 498
acres of occupied Habitat in Dos Palmas and 868 acres of occupied
Habitat in the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel and Delta
Conservation Areas. (Ibid.; Final MSHCP, Table 9-22.) Implementation of
the Plan will provide for the Conservation of the unprotected portions of
crissal thrasher Habitat. (Ibid.)
The Required Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures of
Section 4.4 of the MSHCP will also ensure Conservation of the species.
This section requires that, in the Willow Hole, Thousand Palms, Indio
Hills Palms, East Indio Hills, Dos Palmas, and Coachella Valley
Stormwater Channel and Delta Conservation Areas, surveys will be
conducted by an Acceptable Biologist prior to the start of construction
activities during the nesting season, January 15 — June 15, to determine if
active nest sites for this species occur on the construction site and/or
within 500 feet of the construction site, or to the edge of the property
boundary if less than 500 feet. (Final MSHCP, pp. 4-195 and 4-196.) If
nesting crissal thrashers are found, a 500-foot buffer, or a buffer to the
37
edge of the property boundary if less than 500 feet, will be established
around the nest site. (Ibid.) The buffer will be staked and flagged. (Ibid.)
No construction activities will be permitted within the buffer during the
breeding season of January 15 — June 15 or until the young have fledged.
(Ibid.)
The Plan will also: Protect Essential Ecological Processes including
hydrological regimes necessary to maintain thrasher Habitat; Maintain
Biological Corridors and Linkages for Habitat connectivity; and
Implement biological monitoring and Adaptive Management to ensure
Conservation of this species. (Final MSHCP, Table 4-116.)
Based on the above, impacts to the crissal thrasher are less than significant
and the benefits conferred by the Plan will protect adequate unfragmented
Habitat, maintain Essential Ecological Processes to sustain the Habitat,
and protect Biological Corridors and Linkages, as appropriate.
18. Impacts to the Le Conte's thrasher (Toxostoma lecontei). Individuals
occurring outside the Conservation Areas will be subject to Take,
including those occurring on the Big Dune and the east end of the Indio
Hills. (Final EIR/EIS, p. 4-97.) Approximately 95,688 acres (39%) of all
Habitat and 53% of non -Federal lands will be subject to Take under the
Plan. (Ibid.)
Features of the MSHCP that will reduce Project Impacts. Ninety-eight
percent of the predicted Core Habitat for Le Conte's thrasher will be
38
conserved and 54% of the modeled Habitat will be conserved under the
Plan. (Final MSHCP, Table 4-116.) The MSHCP will result in the
Conservation of 73,548 acres of modeled Habitat together with Existing
Conservation Land for a total of 132,499 acres of Other Conserved Habitat
in twenty Conservation Areas across a range of environmental conditions
within which the species occurs. (Final MSHCP, Table 9-23.)
Management and monitoring activities will ensure Conservation of this
species, including control of activities that degrade its Habitat. (Final
MSHCP, Table 4-116.) Biological Corridors and Linkages will be
maintained for Habitat connectivity and Essential Ecological Processes
will be protected, including hydrological regimes necessary to maintain
thrasher Habitat. (Ibid.)
In addition, the Required Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation
Measures of Section 4.4 of the MSHCP require that, prior to the start of
most construction activities in all Conservation Areas, surveys will be
conducted by an Acceptable Biologist on the construction site and within
500 feet of the construction site, or to the property boundary if less than
500 feet. (Final MSHCP, p. 4-200.) If nesting Le Conte's thrashers are
found, a 500 foot buffer, or to the property boundary if less than 500 feet,
will be established around the nest site. The buffer will be staked and
flagged. (Ibid.) No construction will be permitted within the buffer during
the breeding season of January 15 - June 15 or until the young have
fledged. (Ibid.)
39
Based on the above, impacts to the Le Conte's thrasher are less than
significant and the benefits conferred by the Plan will protect adequate
unfragmented Habitat, maintain Essential Ecological Processes to sustain
the Habitat, and protect Biological Corridors and Linkages, as appropriate.
19. Impacts to the least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus). Individuals
occurring outside , the Conservation Areas will be subject to Take,
including those in migratory Habitat east of the Coachella Canal and in a
small portion of Dos Palmas. (Final EIR/EIS, p. 4-104.) Approximately
760 acres (21 %) of all breeding Habitat (31 % on non -Federal lands) and
14,682 acres (25%) of migratory Habitat (41 % on non -Federal lands) will
be subject to Take under the Plan. (Ibid.)
Features of the MSHCP that will reduce Project Impacts. Seventy-nine
percent of the modeled vireo breeding Habitat, and 72% of the modeled
vireo migratory Habitat will be conserved under the Plan. (Final MSHCP,
Table 4-116.) The MSHCP will result in the Conservation of 1,286 acres
of modeled breeding Habitat together with Existing Conservation Land for
a total of 2,915 acres of breeding Habitat conserved. (Ibid.) The MSHCP
will result in the Conservation of 19,393 acres of modeled migratory
Habitat together with Existing Conservation Land for a total of 40,576
acres of migratory Habitat conserved. (Ibid.) The Plan will provide
permanent protection to riparian Habitat via acquisition and management
in several Conservation Areas and by establishment of permanent riparian
Habitat in the Coachella Valley Storm Channel and Delta Conservation
40
Area. (Final EIR/EIS, p. 4-105.) CVWD will establish 44 acres of
permanent Sonoran cottonwood -willow riparian forest in these two areas.
(Final MSHCP, Table 4-116.)
Implementation of biological monitoring and Adaptive Management will
also occur to ensure Conservation of the vireo. (Ibid.) Essential Ecological
Processes will also be protected, including hydrological regimes necessary
to maintain riparian Habitat. (Ibid.) In addition, the Required Avoidance,
Minimization, and Mitigation Measures of Section 4.4 of the MSHCP
require that Covered Activities, including construction and O&M
activities, in riparian Habitat of the Cabazon, Stubbe and Cottonwood
Canyons, Whitewater Canyon, Upper Mission Creek/Big Morongo
Canyon, Thousand Palms, Indio Hills Palms, Joshua Tree National Park,
Mecca Hills and Orocopia Mountains, Dos Palmas, Coachella Valley
Stormwater Channel and Delta, and Santa Rosa and San Jacinto
Mountains Conservation Areas, will be conducted to the maximum extent
Feasible outside of the March 15 — September 15 nesting season for least
Bell's vireo. (Final MSHCP, p. 4-195.) If Covered Activities must occur
during the nesting season, surveys shall be conducted to determine if any
active nests are present. ([bid.) If active nests are identified, the Covered
Activity shall not be conducted within 200 feet of an active nest. (Ibid.) If
surveys conducted during the nesting season document that Covered
nesting riparian bird Species are not present, the Covered Activity may
proceed. (Ibid.)
Of
Based on the above, impacts to the least Bell's vireo are less than
significant and the benefits conferred by the Plan will provide permanent
protection to its riparian Habitat.
20. Impacts to the gray vireo (Vireo vicinior). Individuals occurring outside
the Conservation Areas will be subject to Take, including those occurring
in the Pinyon Flats area. (Final EIR/EIS, p. 4-102.) Approximately 3,913
acres (4%) of all Habitat and 18% of non -Federal lands will be subject to
Take under the MSHCP. (Ibid.)
Features of the MSHCP that will reduce Project Impacts. Ninety-six
percent of the occupied or potential Habitat is conserved under the Plan.
(Final MSHCP, Table 4-116.) The MSHCP will result in the Conservation
of 13,194 acres of modeled Habitat together with Existing Conservation
Land for a total of 101,544 conserved acres. (Ibid.) The MSHCP protects a
total of 30,519 acres of Other Conserved Habitat in Joshua Tree National
Park Conservation Area and 66,089 acres of Other Conserved Habitat in
Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains Conservation Area. (Final
MSHCP, Table 9-1b.)
Management and monitoring activities will ensure Conservation of this
species, including control of activities that degrade its Habitat. (Final
MSHCP, Table 4-116.) The Plan calls for coordination with federal
agencies regarding appropriate management prescriptions for Pinyon-
42
juniper woodland and chaparral Habitats and control of brown -headed
cowbird nest parasitism. (Ibid.)
Based on the above, the Plan will not have a significant impact on the gray
vireo.
21. Impacts to the yellow warbler (Dendroica petechia brewsteri).
Individuals occurring outside the Conservation Areas will be subject to
Take, including those in migratory Habitat east of the Coachella Canal and
in a small portion of Dos Palmas. (Final EIR/EIS, p. 4-111.)
Approximately 168 acres (6%) of all breeding Habitat (11 % on non -
Federal lands) and 15,278 acres (26%) of migratory Habitat (42% on non -
Federal lands) will be subject to Take under the Plan. (Ibid.)
Features of the MSHCP that will reduce Project Impacts. Ninety-four
percent of the modeled yellow warbler breeding Habitat and 72% of the
modeled yellow warbler migratory Habitat is conserved under the Plan.
(Final MSHCP, Table 4-116.) The Plan will ensure the protection and
management of 1,037 acres of modeled breeding Habitat together with
Existing Conservation Land for a total of 2,563 acres of breeding Habitat
conserved. (Ibid.) The MSHCP will result in the Conservation of 19,638
acres of modeled migratory Habitat together with Existing Conservation
Land for a total of 40,924 acres of migratory Habitat conserved. (Ibid.)
The Plan will provide permanent protection to riparian Habitat via
acquisition and management in several Conservation Areas and by
43
establishment of permanent riparian Habitat in the Whitewater Storm
Channel and Delta Conservation Area. (Final EIR/EIS, p. 4-111.) CVWD
will establish 44 acres of permanent Sonoran cottonwood -willow riparian
forest in the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel and Delta
Conservation area as described in Section 4.3.20 of the MSHCP. (Final
MSHCP, 'Table 4-116.) In addition, the Plan requires that, where
disturbance of a given number of acres of a riparian natural community is
authorized, an equivalent number of acres will be replaced to ensure that
no net loss occurs. (Ibid.)
Implementation of biological monitoring and Adaptive Management will
also take place to ensure Conservation of the yellow warbler. (Ibid.)
Essential Ecological Processes will also be protected, including
hydrological regimes necessary to maintain riparian Habitat. In addition,
the Required Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures of
Section 4.4 of the MSHCP require that Covered Activities, including
construction and O&M activities, in riparian Habitat of the Cabazon,
Stubbe and Cottonwood Canyons, Whitewater Canyon, Upper Mission
Creek/Big Morongo Canyon, Thousand Palms, Indio Hills Palms, Joshua
Tree National Park, Mecca Hills and Orocopia Mountains, Dos Palmas,
Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel and Delta, and Santa Rosa and San
Jacinto Mountains Conservation Areas, will be. conducted to the maximum
extent Feasible outside of the May 1 — September 15 nesting season for
yellow warbler. (Final MSHCP, p. 4-195.) If Covered Activities must
44
occur during the nesting season, surveys shall be conducted to determine if
any active nests are present. (Ibid.) If active nests are identified, the
Covered Activity shall not be conducted within 200 feet of an active nest.
(Ibid.) If surveys conducted during the nesting season document that
Covered nesting riparian bird Species are not present, the Covered
Activity may proceed. (Ibid.)
Based on the above, impacts to the yellow warbler are less than significant
and the benefits conferred by the Plan will protect adequate unfragmented
Habitat, maintain Essential Ecological Processes to sustain the Habitat,
and protect Biological Comdors and Linkages, as appropriate.
22. Impacts to yellow -breasted chat (Icteria virens). Individuals occurring
outside the Conservation Areas will be subject to Take, including those in
migratory Habitat east of the Coachella Canal and in a small portion of
Dos Palmas. (Final EIR/EIS, p. 4-113.) Approximately 180 acres (6%) of
all breeding Habitat (1 I % on non -Federal lands) and 15,265 acres (26%)
of migratory Habitat (42% on non -Federal lands) will be subject to Take
under the MSHCP. (Ibid.)
Features of the MSHCP that will reduce Project Impacts. Ninety-four
percent of the modeled chat breeding Habitat and 71 % of the modeled chat
migratory Habitat is conserved under the Plan. (Final MSHCP, Table
4-116.) The Plan will ensure the protection and management of 1,160
acres of modeled breeding Habitat together with Existing Conservation
45
Land for a total of 2,829 acres of breeding Habitat conserved. (Ibid.) The
MSHCP will result in the Conservation of 19,518 acres of modeled
migratory Habitat together with Existing Conservation Land for a total of
40,661 acres of migratory Habitat conserved. (Ibid.)
The Plan will provide permanent protection to riparian Habitat via
acquisition and management in several Conservation Areas and by
establishment of. permanent riparian Habitat in the Whitewater Storm
Channel and Delta Conservation Area. (Final EIRlEIS, p. 4-113.) CVWD
will establish 44 acres of permanent Sonoran cottonwood -willow riparian
forest in the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel and Delta
Conservation area as described in Section 4.3.20 of the MSHCP. (Final
MSHCP, Table 4-116.) In addition, the Plan requires that, where
disturbance of a given number of acres of a riparian natural community is
authorized, an equivalent number of acres will be replaced to ensure that
no net loss occurs. (Ibid.)
Implementation of biological monitoring and Adaptive Management will
also take place to ensure Conservation of the yellow -breasted chat. (Ibid.)
Essential Ecological Processes will also be protected, including
hydrological regimes necessary to maintain riparian Habitat. (Ibid.) In
addition, the Required Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures
of Section 4.4 of the MSHCP require that Covered Activities, including
construction and O&M activities, in riparian Habitat of the Cabazon,
Stubbe and Cottonwood Canyons, Whitewater Canyon, Upper Mission
46
Creek/Big Morongo Canyon, Thousand Palms, Indio Hills Palms, Joshua
Tree National Park, Mecca Hills and Orocopia Mountains, Dos Palmas,
Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel and Delta, and Santa Rosa and San
Jacinto Mountains Conservation Areas, will be conducted to the maximum
extent Feasible outside of the May 1 — September 15 nesting season for
yellow -breasted chat. (Final MSHCP, p. 4-195.) If Covered Activities
must occur during the nesting season, surveys shall be conducted to
determine if any active nests are present. (Ibid.) If active nests are
identified, the Covered Activity shall not be conducted within 200 feet of
an active nest. (Ibid.) If surveys conducted during the nesting season
document that Covered nesting riparian bird Species are not present, the
Covered Activity may proceed. (Ibid.)
Based on the above, impacts to the yellow -breasted chat are less than
significant and the benefits conferred by the Plan will protect adequate
unfragmented Habitat, maintain Essential Ecological Processes to sustain
the Habitat, and protect Biological Corridors and Linkages, as appropriate.
23. Impacts to the summer tanager (Piranga rubra). Individuals occurring
outside the Conservation Areas will be subject to Take, including those in
migratory Habitat east of the Coachella Canal and in a small portion of
Dos Palmas. (Final EIR/EIS, p. 4-109.) Approximately 168 acres of all
breeding Habitat and 15,278 acres of migratory Habitat will be subject to
Take under the Plan. (Final MSHCP, Table 4-114.)
47
Features of the MSHCP that will reduce Project Impacts. Ninety-four
percent of the modeled summer tanager breeding Habitat and 71 % of the
modeled summer tanager migratory Habitat is conserved under the Plan.
(Final MSHCP, Table 4-116.) The MSHCP will result in the Conservation
of 1,037 acres of modeled breeding Habitat together with Existing
Conservation Land for a total of 2,563 acres of breeding Habitat
conserved. (Ibid.) Permittees will also protect and manage 19,638 acres of
modeled migratory Habitat together with Existing Conservation Land for a
total of 40,924 acres of migratory Habitat conserved. (Ibid.)
The Plan will provide permanent protection to riparian Habitat via
acquisition and management in several Conservation Areas and by
establishment of permanent riparian Habitat in the Coachella Valley Storm
Channel and Delta Conservation Area. (Final EIR/EIS, p. 4-109.) CVWD
will establish 44 acres of permanent Sonoran cottonwood -willow riparian
forest in the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel and Delta
Conservation area as described in Section 4.3.20 of the MSHCP. (Final
MSHCP, Table 4-116.) In addition, the Plan requires that, where
disturbance of a given number of acres of a riparian natural community is
authorized, an equivalent number of acres will be replaced to ensure that
no net loss occurs. (Ibid.)
Implementation of biological monitoring and Adaptive Management will
also take place to ensure Conservation of the summer tanager. (Ibid.)
Essential Ecological Processes will also be protected, including
48
hydrological regimes necessary to maintain riparian Habitat. In addition,
the Required Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures of
Section 4.4 of the MSHCP require that Covered Activities, including
construction and O&M activities, in riparian Habitat of the Cabazon,
Stubbe and Cottonwood Canyons, Whitewater Canyon, Upper Mission
Creek/Big Morongo Canyon, Thousand Palms, Indio Hills Palms, Joshua
Tree National Park, Mecca Hills and Orocopia Mountains, Dos Palmas,
Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel and Delta, and Santa Rosa and San
Jacinto Mountains Conservation Areas, will be conducted to the maximum
extent Feasible outside of the May 1 — September 15 nesting season for
summer tanager. (Final MSHCP, p. 4-195.) If Covered Activities must
occur during the nesting season, surveys shall be conducted to determine if
any active nests are present. (Ibid.) If active nests are identified, the
Covered Activity shall not be conducted within 200 feet of an active nest.
(Ibid.) If surveys conducted during the nesting season document that
Covered nesting riparian bird Species are not present, the Covered
Activity may proceed. (Ibid.)
Based on the above, impacts to the summer tanager are less than
significant and the benefits conferred by the Plan will provide permanent
protection to its riparian Habitat.
24. Impacts to the Southern yellow bat (Lasiurus xanthinus). Individuals
occurring outside the Conservation Areas will be subject to Take,
including those occurring in isolated palm oases scattered throughout the
49
Plan Area. (Final EIR/EIS, p. 4-126.) Approximately 78 acres (6%) of all
Habitat and 9% of non -Federal lands will be subject to Take under the
Plan. (Ibid.)
Features of the MSHCP that will reduce Project Impacts. Ninety-four
percent of the 1,329 acres of occupied or potential yellow bat Habitat is
conserved under the Plan. (Final MSHCP, Table 4-116.) The MSHCP will
result in the Conservation of 590 acres of modeled Habitat together with
Existing Conservation Land for a total of 1,250 acres conserved. (Ibid.)
The Plan will protect Essential Ecological processes including
hydrological regimes necessary to maintain fan palm oases and implement
biological monitoring and Adaptive Management to ensure Conservation
of yellow bat Habitat. (Ibid.) The Plan will also conserve occupied and
potential Habitat in native fan palm oases. (lbid.)
Finally, existing wetland laws and. CEQA requirements that protect the fan
palm oases could further reduce impacts to the southern yellow bat, if any
are expected to be minor and insignificant. (Final EIR/EIS, p. 4-126.)
Based on the above, impacts to the Southern yellow bat are less than
significant.
25. Impacts to Coachella Valley round -tailed ground squirrel
(Spermophilus tereticaudus chlorus). Individuals occurring outside the
Conservation Areas will be subject to Take, including those occurring east
50
of Desert Hot Springs, on the Big Dune and along the Coachella Canal
south of I-10. (Final EIR/EIS, p. 4-120.) Approximately 60,187 acres
(59%) of all Habitat and 69% of non -Federal lands will be subject to Take
under the MSHCP. (Ibid.) There will be approximately 1,379 acres (6%)
of Core Habitat subject to Take under the Plan. (Ibid.)
Features of the MSHCP that will reduce Project Impacts. Ninety-four
percent of the Core Habitat for this ground squirrel will be conserved and
33% of the occupied or potential Habitat will be conserved under the Plan.
(Final MSHCP, Table 4-116.) The MSHCP will result in the Conservation
of 20,657 acres of modeled Habitat together with Existing Conservation
Land for a total of 33,778 acres conserved. (Ibid.)
Using the criteria set forth by the Scientific Advisory Committee, the
MSHCP has established Conservation Areas to protect this species. (Final
EIR/EIS, p. 4-121.) Four of these Conservation Areas contain Core
Habitat and 16 protect Other Conserved Habitat. (Final MSHCP, Table
4-116.) The Conservation Areas are large enough to contain hundreds of
animals and are adequately connected to each other to allow genetic
exchange. (Final EIR/EIS, p. 4-121.) The MSHCP ensures Conservation
of Essential Ecological Processes including sand source/sand transport
systems; maintains Linkages among all conserved populations; and
implements biological monitoring and Adaptive Management to ensure
long-term persistence (Final MSHCP, Table 4-1 16.)
51
Because occupancy rates for this ground squirrel are high in mesquite
hummocks, it is therefore desirable to preserve the natural communities
with a mesquite component for this squirrel. (Final EIR/EIS p. 4-121.)
Substantial stands of mesquite hummocks and dunes are conserved within
the Willow Hole and Thousand Palms Conservation Areas. (Ibid.) As
discussed in Section 8 of the Plan, the Monitoring Program will include
the use of appropriate methods and technologies (which may change over
time) to monitor groundwater levels in the Willow Hole, East Indio Hills;
and Thousand Palms Conservation Areas where a substantial lowering of
the water table could have a significant adverse impact on mesquite
hummocks. (Ibid.) Should monitoring detect a substantial lowering of the
water table or a decline in mesquite health, the Plan specifies procedures
to be taken to ameliorate potentially significant effects. (Ibid.)
Finally, Section 4.4 of the Plan requires that most Construction Activities
in Cabazon, Willow Hole, Thousand Palms, Indio Hills Palms, East Indio
Hills, Dos Palmas, Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel and Delta, and
Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains Conservation Areas avoid
mesquite hummocks and mesquite bosque to the maximum extent
Feasible. (Final MSHCP, p. 4-201).
Based on the above, impacts to the Coachella Valley round -tailed ground
squirrel are less than significant and the benefits conferred by the Plan will
protect adequate unfragmented Habitat, maintain Essential Ecological
52
Processes to sustain the Habitat, and protect Biological Corridors and
Linkages, as appropriate.
26. Impacts to the Palm Springs pocket mouse (Perognathus longimembris
bangsi). Individuals occurring outside the Conservation Areas will be
subject to Take, including those occurring east of Desert Hot Springs, on
the Big Dune, between the southern Indio Hills and the Little San
Bernardino Mountains, east of the Coachella Canal south of I-10 and in
the North Shore area. (Final EIR/EIS, p. 4-123 .) Approximately 74,218
acres (52%) of all Habitat and 62% of non -Federal lands will be subject to
Take under the MSHCP. (Ibid.) There will be approximately 1,933 acres
(6%) of Core Habitat subject to Take under the Plan. (Ibid.)
Features of the MSHCP that will reduce Project Impacts. Ninety-three
percent of the Core Habitat for the pocket mouse will be conserved and
40% of the occupied or potential Habitat is conserved under the Plan.
((Final MSHCP, Table 4-116.) This includes protection of 77% of the
known occurrences for the mouse. The MSHCP will result in the
Conservation of 35,959 acres of modeled Habitat together with Existing
Conservation Land for a total of 56,873 acres conserved. (Final MSHCP,
Table 4-116.)
The Plan will ensure Conservation of Core Habitat within five
Conservation Areas; Protect Other Conserved Habitat in 16 Conservation
Areas through adherence to other Conservation Objectives; Ensure
53
Conservation of Essential Ecological Processes including sand
source/sand transport system; Maintain Linkages among all conserved
populations; and Implement biological monitoring and Adaptive
Management to ensure long-term persistence. (Ibid.) Implementation of
the Plan will maintain and enhance population viability of the Palm
Springs pocket mouse which currently receives no protection outside of
the existing Coachella Valley Fringe -Toed Lizard Preserve System. (Ibid.)
Management and monitoring prescriptions will further enhance long-term
` Conservation of this species. (Ibid.)
27. Impacts to Peninsular Bighorn Sheep (Ovis Canadensis nelsonz).
Approximately 6,533 acres (3%) of all Habitat for the Peninsular Bighorn
Sheep ("PBS") and 6% of non -Federal lands would be subject to Take
under the MSHCP. (Final EIR/EIS, p. 4-117.) Habitat impacts outside the
Conservation Areas would occur primarily in the Pinyon Flats area under
the MSHCP. (Ibid.)
Features of the MSHCP that will reduce Project Impacts.
Ninety-seven percent of the Essential Habitat for the PBS will be
conserved under the Plan. (Final MSHCP, Table 4-116.) The MSHCP will
result in the Conservation of 30,226 acres of modeled Habitat together
with Existing Conservation Land for a total of 165,856 acres conserved.
54
The Plan contains several management strategies designed to avoid Take
of the PBS. First, the Plan will protect Essential Habitat for the PBS as
delineated in the final Recovery Plan for PBS in the Peninsular Ranges,
California (USFWS 2000). (Ibid.) Second, the Plan contains measures to
control and manage activities that degrade PBS Essential Habitat within
the Conservation area. (Ibid.) This could include human disturbance,
Habitat fragmentation, and edge effects. (Ibid.) Third, the Plan provides
mechanisms to reduce impacts from invasive species. (Ibid.) Fourth, fire
management guidelines may be developed where necessary. (Ibid.) Fifth,
restoration and enhancement of degraded Habitat are options that may be
used. (Ibid.) And finally, Section 4.4 of the MSHCP (Required Avoidance,
Minimization, and Mitigation Measures) contains further avoidance
requirements. That section states that completion of Covered Activities in
PBS Habitat in the Cabazon, Snow Creek/Windy Point, and Santa Rosa
and San Jacinto Mountains Conservation Areas will be conducted outside
of the January 1 - June 30 lambing season unless otherwise authorized
through a Minor Amendment to the Plan with concurrence from the
Wildlife Agencies. (Final MSHCP, p. 4-201.) O&M of Covered Activities,
including but not limited to refinishing the inside of water storage tanks,
shall be scheduled to avoid the lambing season, but may extend into the
January 1 — June 30 period if necessary to complete the activity, upon
concurrence with the Wildlife Agencies. (Final MSHCP, p. 4-201.)
55
Section 4.4 further states that for new projects in the aforementioned
Conservation Areas, no toxic or invasive plant species may be used for
landscaping. (Ibid.) For existing public infrastructure facilities which have
landscaping in PBS Habitat in the Cabazon, Snow Creek/Windy Point, and
Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains Conservation Areas, the Permittees
who have such facilities will, with respect to those facilities, develop and
implement a plan and schedule to remove or prevent access to oleander
and any other plants known to be toxic to PBS. (Ibid.) The plan and
schedule will be prepared within one (1) year of Permit issuance. (Ibid.)
The majority of the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains Conservation
Area, a Conservation Area listed by the Recovery Plan for the PBS as a
recovery region, is subject to the Habitat Evaluation and Acquisition
Negotiation Strategy ("HANS") process described in Section 6.6.1.2 of the
Plan. The HANS process is to be utilized to ensure that all Development
complies with the Conservation Goals and Objectives of the MSHCP for
conserving Essential Habitat and alleviating threats to the Plan Area.
population. (Final MSHCP, p. 6-22; Table 4-116.)
In addition, Land Use Adjacency Guidelines set forth in Section 4.5 of the
Plan establish parameters by which potential impacts to PBS and their
Habitat will be judged. These include adverse alterations to natural
drainages, introduction of toxic or hazardous materials, light and noise,
and the introduction of toxic and invasive plants.
56
Finally, the Species Objectives for PBS (Section 9.8.3.1 of the MSHCP)
include ensuring that implementation of the MSHCP is consistent with the
recovery strategy in the Recovery Plan to the maximum extent feasible.
(Final EIR/EIS, p. 4-118.)
Based on the above, impacts to the PBS are less than significant and the
benefits conferred by the Plan will provide permanent protection to its
Habitat.
E. Cultural Resources (excluding Revised Trails Plan)
The MSHCP involves detailed Conservation planning, management and
monitoring within Conservation Areas, which will enhance the Conservation of
cultural resources by precluding Development that may impact those resources.
(Final EIR/EIS, p. 4-179.) All conditionally compatible uses, including future
planning and development of trails, trailheads, and interpretive facilities (i.e.
information kiosks) must follow guidelines specified in the Plan that will protect
cultural resources. ([bid.) In addition, certain Allowable Uses in the Reserve
System, including activities associated with reserve management, monitoring and
scientific research, will not result in any significant land disturbance. (Ibid.) Thus,
the Plan will not generate adverse impacts on sensitive cultural resources. (Ibid.)
Accordingly, there are no significant impacts to cultural resources from the
MSHCP.
F. Environmental Justice
57
Since its inception, the MSHCP planning process has been open to the public in
an effort to disseminate information, solicit comments, and provide opportunities
for public input. (Final EIR/EIS, p. 4-249.) Three public scoping meetings, which
were fully noticed in local newspapers and mailings to public interest groups and
potentially affected landowners, were held in 2000 in the western, central, and
eastern portions of the Coachella Valley. (Ibid.) More than a dozen meetings were
held by the BLM to solicit input. and feedback from special interest groups. (Ibid.)
All meetings of the Project Advisory Group ("PAG."), which has met
approximately once a month since 1998, have been open to the public. (Ibid.)
The primary objectives of the proposed Plan are: (1) to preserve undeveloped,
uninhabited open space lands, which can be used to create large, interconnected
preserves for sensitive species and their Habitats, (2) to provide a regulatory
process through which Development can proceed in an efficient .way, and (3) to
standardize mitigation/compensation measures for the Covered Species in a
manner that satisfies applicable Federal and State laws pertaining to Endangered
Species protection. (Ibid.; Final MSHCP, § 1.2.) The Plan Area includes City and
County lands in Eastern Riverside County believed necessary to achieve these
goals, and it does not target or exclude any community or parcel of land based on
demographic or income characteristics. (Ibid.) No Indian Reservations are subject
to the MSHCP. The MSHCP will not result in any adverse, direct or
disproportionate impacts to minorities or minority populations, low income
populations, concentrated Native American populations or children. (Final
EIR/EIS, pp. 4-246 through 4-248.)
58
Therefore, no significant impacts to minority populations, low income
populations, Native American populations, or children will result from
implementation of the MSHCP.
G. Geology and Soils
While the Plan does provide for minimal building (i.e. information kiosks) and
potentially provides for minimal soil disturbance (i.e. trail construction), the
MSHCP does not allow Development that would otherwise not be permitted in
areas where geologic hazards occur. (Final EIR/EIS, p. 4-34.) In fact, the MSHCP
will reduce the exposure to geologic hazards by acquiring lands for Conservation.
(Ibid.) Existing General Plans, zoning ordinances, building codes, and
environmental review policies, standards, and requirements will remain in effect
under the MSHCP to ensure that any Development in Conservation Areas will
assess potential hazards and impacts and enforce relevant laws and regulations.
(Ibid.) Accordingly, impacts on soils and geology are less than significant.
H. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The MSHCP does not require or promote the transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials. (Final EIR/EIS, p. 4-251.) Nor will the Plan facilitate a
hazardous release of materials, substances or waste. (Ibid.) Likewise, the Plan will
not directly involve the building of any structure on a site which is included in the
list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5, creating a significant hazard to the public or the environment. (Ibid.) In
addition, as a Conservation Plan, the Plan does not facilitate the Development of
59
residences or buildings related to an airport land use plan area or airstrip, nor does
the Plan cater to any involvement of persons residing or working in such areas. As
such, the Plan will not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working
within an airport land use plan area or within the vicinity of a private airstrip.
(Ibid.) Nor does the Plan allow for or impair an adopted emergency response plan.
(Ibid.) Finally, the Plan will not expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are
adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands.
(Final EIR/EIS, p. 4-250 through 4-252.)
Management of the Reserve System will entail the limited use and storage of
herbicides and pesticides to control exotic or invasive non-native plant and animal
species. (Final EIR/EIS 4-251.) This use and storage is an allowable use which
would be overseen by the appropriate Reserve Management Unit Committee and
would comply with all applicable laws and regulations. (]bid.)
Because the implementation of the MSHCP will not pose or create a significant -
threat or hazard, nor expose the public to significant hazardous or toxic materials,
no mitigation measures are required.
I. Hydrology and Water Quality
Existing alluvial fans and floodplains in the Coachella Valley have previously
been selected and developed for large-scale groundwater recharge activities.
(Final EIR/EIS, p. 4-52.) The MSHCP ensures, rather than interferes with, the
continued functioning of these activities in several ways. For example, the
Z1
MSHCP provides Take Authorization for CVWD planned groundwater recharge
facilities and the continued operation of its existing groundwater recharge
facilities within the Plan Area. (Ibid.) CVWD must conserve the lands within the
Whitewater F000dplain Preserve in perpetuity, and also cooperate with CVCC in
the Conservation of other CVWD lands in the Conservation Areas. (Final
EIR/EIS, p. 4-53.)
In addition, the Plan provides Take Authorization for the Operation and
Maintenance of levees and flood control channels within the Conservation Areas
to ensure that Plan implementation does not expose people or structures to
significant risk of loss, injury, or death from flooding, including flooding as a
result of the failure of a levee or dam. (Ibid.) Further, the Plan will not in itself
permit housing within a 100-year flood hazard as mapped on a federal Flood
Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation
map. (Ibid.) Nor will the Plan itself permit structures which would impede or
redirect flood flows within a 100-year flood hazard area, or create or contribute
runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water
drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff.
(Ibid.)
The Plan also will not contribute to inundation by seiche, tsunami, mud or debris
flow since it will not create any physical changes that would cause or contribute
to such inundation. (Ibid.) In contrast, the Plan will conserve many floodplain
areas, thus reducing the potential for structures to be built in these areas. (Ibid.)
61
Also, through Reserve Assembly, the MSHCP will not substantially alter any
existing drainage pattern in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off -site, nor in a manner that would substantially deplete
groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such
that there would be a net -deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level. (Ibid.) Because the MSHCP will conserve many
floodplain areas, it will reduce the potential for structures to be built in such areas.
(Ibid.)
The MSHCP also does not propose any significant change to existing or planned
flood control projects or facilities. Nor will the MSHCP affect existing regulations
for Development on mapped floodplains which are intended to reduce risk to lives
or property. (Ibid.)
For the above reasons, the MSHCP will not conflict with but rather facilitates the
requirements of federal agencies to act to reduce risk of flood loss and minimize
impacts to human safety, health and welfare, and to restore the natural and
beneficial values of floodplains. (Final EIR/EIS, p. 4-54.)
For the foregoing reasons, the MSHCP will not violate any water quality
standards or waste discharge requirements, nor impede groundwater recharge.
Therefore, no significant impacts to hydrology and water quality will result from
implementation of the MSHCP.
62
J. Land Use and Planning
The general plan land use designation information utilized by the MSHCP is
based in part on the GIS land use designation information for the Plan Area
provided to CVAG from the Southern California Association of Governments
("SCAG"). SCAG based its map on the information largely provided it by
member cities. (Response to Comment Y01-36.)
Utilizing this information provided by SCAG, the MSHCP was designed to avoid
conflicts with any plans adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect. (Final EIR/EIS, p. 4-7.) The MSHCP also does not change
existing general plan land use designations. (Response to Comment Z02-29.) In
fact, several components of the Plan ensure that the Plan is consistent with general
land use designations and that neither the CVCC nor the Wildlife Agencies will
have decision -making authority over land use decisions. The Wildlife Agencies
may, but are not required to, submit comments on proposed projects in the
Conservation Areas through the Joint Project Review process. (Final MSHCP, pp.
6-20 through 6-22; Response to Comment Z02-16.) The design of the
Conservation Areas of the MSHCP took into account the General Plan land use
designations of the Local Permittees, and approximately 91 % of the land in the
Conservation Areas has an Open Space designation to conserve open space
resources. (Ibid.)
The proposed Plan is also consistent and compatible with the objectives of local,
State, regional and Federal agencies, and tribal land use plans, policies and
63
controls for the Plan Area. through ongoing consultation and coordination. (Final
EIR/EIS, P. 4-8.)
Because the distribution of the Conservation Areas accommodates the physical
integrity of the communities, the MSHCP does not contribute towards the
physical separation of all but one community. (lbid.) However, the Upper Mission
Creek/Big Morongo Canyon Conservation Area adjoins the existing urbanized
portion of Desert Hot Springs and creates a separation between it and future
planned Development. (Ibid.) The separation, however, ranges between 0.25
miles and 0.5 miles and follows the Morongo Wash floodplain area, which
already constitutes a natural separation. (Ibid.) The proposed Plan also provides
Take Authorization for major roads that connect the two portions of the city.
(Ibid.) Additionally, a trail system is allowed in the Conservation Area and would
serve as an amenity to help unite the two areas of the city. (Ibid.)
The MSHCP does not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation plan. (Ibid)
Based on the above, no significant impacts to land use will result from
implementation of the MSHCP.
Revised Trails Plan. Proposed new trails have been carefully sited to largely stay
within public lands and/or rights of way. (Final EIR/EIS, p. 5-18.) However,
proposals to construct perimeter trails and other new trails will be deferred until
the initial phase of the monitoring and research program has been completed.
(Final EIR/EIS, p. 5-19.) This approach will ensure that trail conditions (e.g., use
64
levels) are consistent once the research and monitoring programs are initiated.
(Ibid.) Thus the Revised Trails Plan does not conflict with any plans adopted for
the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect, and impacts are
less than significant.
The development of the Revised Trails Plan has involved close coordination with
local jurisdictions and state and federal agencies to assure that the Revised Trails
Plan is consistent and compatible with the objectives of local, state, regional and
federal agencies, and tribal land use plans, polices and controls for the Santa Rosa
and San Jacinto Mountains. (Final EIR/EIS, pp. 5-18 through 5-19.) Based upon
the coordinated and integrated nature of the Revised Trails Plan, impacts to
federal, state, regional, local, or tribal land use plans, policies, or controls are less
than significant. (Final EIR/EIS, p. 5-19.)
The Revised Trails Plan also does not result in the physical separation of a
community. Most of the trail alignments within the Revised Trails Plan are
outside currently developed areas and do not intrude into existing or planned
urban Development. (Ibid.)
The Revised Trails Plan also does not conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. (Ibid.)
Several proposed alternative alignments to the Palm Desert to La Quinta
Connector Trail could have a significant adverse impact on land use. (Final
EIR/EIS, pp. 5-19 through 5-20.) The Palm Desert to La Quinta Connector Trail
will be a Covered Activity unless research results indicate that this trail would
:.
adversely affect PBS. (Final EIR/EIS, p. 5-19.) If significant adverse impacts to
native and/or captive breeding populations result as determined through the
research program described in Element 2, and Feasible mitigation measures
cannot be implemented to reduce this impact, then all or a portion of this trail as
originally proposed will not be constructed. (Ibid.) Subsequent CEQA and/or
NEPA analysis of the connector trail will also be conducted. (Ibid.)
K. Mineral Resources
The .MSHCP may result in the potential loss of a mineral resource (sand and
gravel) within the Plan Area, or may result in the loss of availability of wind
energy to the region.
However, impacts to mineral resources under the MSHCP will be less than
significant. First, the Conservation Areas were designed to minimize inclusion of
mining operations, thus allowing continued mineral extractions. (Final EIR/EIS,
p. 4-37.) In the Plan Area, there are 17,527 acres that have been designated as
Mineral Resource Zone 2 ("MRZ-2"). (Ibid.) Of this acreage, ten thousand acres
of Mineral Resource Zone 2 (lands containing significant mineral deposits) are
included in the Conservation Areas, including 1,983 Federally owned acres, 921
acres of non -Federal Existing Conservation Land, and 1,051 acres which have
been approved for mining and will receive Take Authorization. (Ibid.) Thus, only
6,052 acres of MRZ-2 lands could be directly affected by the Plan. (Ibid.)
Because Development will be limited in Conservation Areas, it is foreseeable that
this resource may not be developed under the MSHCP. (Ibid.) However, this
impact will not be significant because the Plan Area contains sufficient sand and
gravel resources to meet the demand for approximately 130 years at the current
rate of consumption. (Ibid.)
Second, the Plan does not affect or modify existing Permits or require new
Permits, and does not impose limits on the extraction of available resources. As
such, existing mining operations, although not Covered Activities, will not be
affected by the MSHCP. (Ibid.)
Third, existing mineral resources will not be physically affected by lands
conserved under the Plan.
Finally, certain mining areas, such as certain Indio Quarry lands, will actually
benefit by implementation of the MSHCP because they will receive Take
Authorization. (Ibid.)
Impacts to energy resources, specifically wind energy conservation systems
(turbines) within the Plan Area would be less than significant. (Final EIR/EIS, p.
4-39.) Over the past 20 years, the most economically developable wind resources
in the Plan Area have been developed. (Ibid.) Second, because windfarm
development is a low impact activity, any remaining future development will not
be significantly in conflict with or constrained by adoption and implementation of
the MSHCP. (Final EIR/EIS, p. 4-40.) Third, the MSHCP does not preclude the
continued O&M of the wind turbines; nor does it preclude replacing older
turbines with new ones, as long as replacement is consistent with the
Conservation Objectives. (Response to Comment D10-02.) Finally, the Plan
67
provides Take Authorization for ground disturbance associated with windfarm
Development in Conservation Areas that is consistent with applicable
Conservation Goals and Objectives. (Final EIR/EIS, p. 4-40.)
In addition, the Plan will not constrain future solar or thermal energy facilities that
may be built. (Ibid.)
There are no existing or planned timber harvesting areas .in the Plan Area; thus
there are no impacts. (Final EIR/EIS, p. 4-42.) Additionally, the Plan would have
no effect on any commercially viable timber resource in any area outside but
adjacent to the Plan Area. (Ibid.)
L. Noise
The MSHCP will not result in the generation of significant noise levels as defined
by CEQA. (Final EIR/EIS, p. 4-197.) The MSHCP will result in very little
construction or maintenance activities that will generate significant noise impacts.
(Ibid.) Construction activities under the Plan will be limited to minor construction
projects associated with installation of fencing, and the construction of trails and
trailhead facilities. (Ibid.) All of these activities will be very limited in extent and
short in duration and will be less than significant. (Ibid.)
M. Population and Housing
Since 1980, population in the Coachella Valley has grown rapidly, and is
expected to increase to 440,301 by 2010 and 540,901 by 2020. (Final EIR/EIS, p.
4-212.) If the trend continues, the Coachella Valley and its jurisdictions will
require additional housing to support the increase in population. Because a goal of
the MSHCP is to conserve a significant amount of acreage for the benefit of
species' preservation within the Plan Area, affected jurisdictions could have less
acreage with which to consider the placement of proposed Developments,
resulting in a potential impact from implementation of the MSHCP. Relevant
impact areas are analyzed below.
County and City Budgets. The MSHCP has developed a fiscal impact analysis
to calculate the potential costs and revenues of each jurisdiction if buildout of
lands actually occurred. (Final EIR/EIS, p. 4-216.) The analysis concluded that in
most jurisdictions, the potential buildout of the lands proposed for inclusion in
Conservation Areas would result in residential Development at low or very low
densities, and would result in a negative cash flow to the jurisdiction at buildout.
(Ibid.) In fact, only Palm Springs (+$706,868) and Riverside County
(+$22,100,100) would generate positive annual cash flow by building out
developable Conservation Lands. (Ibid.) The net loss to Palm Springs would
represent 0.6% of the City's annual operating revenue, while the County would
lose approximately 2% of its General Fund Revenues. (Final EIR/EIS, at pp.
4-218 through 4-219.) Thus, because buildout in most jurisdictions would create a
negative funding stream, and in Riverside County and Palm Springs the loss of
such potential funds would not create a substantial adverse economic impact on
each jurisdiction's economy, such impacts to each jurisdiction are less than
significant.
Development Potential. The analysis also compared potentially developable
lands within and outside of the Conservation Areas for each jurisdiction. (First
EIR/EIS, pp. 4-216 through 4-233.) For the nine cities within the Plan Area, a
combined 42,883 acres of Development potential lie outside the proposed
Conservation Areas, and approximately 9,644 acres with at least some (and often
constrained) Development potential lie within the Conservation Areas. (Final
EIR/EIS, pp. 4-219 through 4-231.) Regarding Riverside County, 153,271 acres
of developable lands are within the Conservation Areas and 90,513 acres are
outside. (Final EIR/EIS, p. 4-231.) However, most of the lands within the
Conservation Areas are designated as low -density, very -low density, or urban,
whereas the lands outside Conservation Areas represent more suburban and urban
densities. (Final EIR/EIS, pp. 4-219 through 4-231.) Therefore, the number of
development units that may be constructed in 'Conservation Areas is low even
without the Plan, and given the fact that the MSHCP allows Development on 10%
of the land within the Conservation Areas, a substantial portion of these lands
could be used for construction even with the Plan. Thus, the impacts of the Plan
associated with residential, commercial, and industrial Development potential on
lands within Conservation Areas are less than significant. (Final EIR/EIS, p.
4-231.)
Growth Constraints. Future residential Development will be minimally
impacted in Coachella, Indian Wells, Indio, and La Quinta. (Final EIR/EIS, p.
4-232.) In the remaining cities and in the unincorporated portions of the Plan
Area, impacts will be primarily on lands within Conservation Areas but, as
70
discussed above, these lands have been designated for low or very low density
designations. (Ibid.) Thus, based on the above analysis, impacts to future
residential growth will be less than significant.
For the entire Plan Area, approximately 8,300 acres of lands with potential for
commercial Development are located outside the Conservation Areas, and less
than 80 acres lie within Conservation Areas. (Final EIR/EIS, p. 4-233.) Given the
fact that the Plan Area encompasses over 1.1 million acres, impacts to future
commercial Development are less than significant.
Approximately 14,000 of the 15,000 acres of land currently designated for
industrial use are located outside the Conservation Areas. (Final EIR/EIS, p.
4-234.) Thus, the Plan will not constitute a significant constraint to industrial
Development in the Plan Area.
Based on the above analysis, the MSHCP will not significantly constrain
Development potential within the Plan Area. Thus, impacts are overall less than
significant.
Cost of Development. Based on the analysis in the EIR/EIS, a developer would
in all likelihood typically incur significantly more costs without the MSHCP than
with it. (Final EIR/EIS, p. 4-236.) Therefore, the impacts associated with costs of
Development would be beneficial.
Affordable Housing. In most jurisdictions, there will be minimal or no impact on
affordable housing, since lands designated for medium to high density residential
71
Development (where affordable housing is most likely to occur) occur outside the
Conservation Areas. (Final EIR/EIS, p. 4-239.) Exceptions occur in Desert Hot
Springs, Palm Desert, and the unincorporated areas of the Plan Area. In Desert
Hot Springs, acreagein in medium density designations could yield up to 557
dwelling units. (Final EIR/EIS, p. 4-237.) However, the Medium and High
Density lands in Desert Hot Springs outside Conservation Areas have a potential
capacity of 10,340 dwelling units. (Ibid.) In Palm Desert, lands designated for
medium density Development could yield up to 128 dwelling units, whereas the
100 acres outside Conservation Areas could yield 530 dwelling units. (Ibid.) In
the unincorporated areas, the ratio is 1,391:9,121. (Ibid.) Because such a small
amount of potentially affordable land will be conserved in comparison to
affordable available land outside the Conservation Areas, overall impacts will be
less than significant.
Employment. Potentially developable lands most impacted are designated for
low to very low density residential Development, which has limited potential to
generate jobs. (Final EIR/EIS, p. 4-239.) Commercial and industrial lands have
more potential for sustainable employment. However, commercial lands within
Conservation Areas represent less than one percent of the total lands. (Final
EIR/EIS, 4-240.) This loss in potential employment is expected to be equivalent
to the loss in leasable retail space, and represents a less than significant impact.
(Ibid.) In addition, industrial lands within Conservation Areas represent 6.9% of
the developable lands, also representing a less than significant impact.
N. Utilities and Service Systems
72
The MSHCP will provide Take Authorization for public facilities operated by
CVWD, IID, County Flood Control, County Parks, and County Waste, as well as
by the nine city Permittees in the Coachella Valley. (Final EIR/EIS, p. 4-207.)
This will facilitate the O&M of public facilities and the delivery of services by
these Permittees. (Ibid.) The MSHCP will provide the basis for the issuance of
Take Authorization for Emergency access and Emergency response within the
MSHCP Reserve System. (Ibid.) The MSHCP also allows limited Development in
these Areas, so that additional new public facilities are not precluded in the
Conservation Areas. (Ibid.) Non-permittees that provide public services requiring
Take Authorization could seek such Authorization _under the Permits through the
Participating Special Entity provisions. (Ibid.) The Plan will have a beneficial
impact on electric power facilities as IID's Covered Activities can proceed and be
maintained. (Ibid.) Southern California Edison ("SCE") is not a Permittee under
the MSHCP. (Ibid.) However, under the provisions set forth in Section 7.5 of the
MSHCP, SCE may request Take Authorization for its activities from the CVCC
pursuant to the Permits as a Participating Special Entity, consistent with the terms
and requirements of the Permits, the Plan, and the IA. (Ibid.)
Based upon an assessment of the potential impacts of the MSHCP on electric
power facilities, natural gas transmission facilities, telephone and cable facilities,
and the provisions of Sections 7.0. and 7.4 of the MSHCP, the MSHCP will not
conflict with or obstruct construction of new public utilities or facilities, including
above ground and subsurface energy, fuel or telecommunication transmission
facilities. (Final EIR/EIS, pp. 4-207 through 4-209.) Nor will it conflict with or
73
obstruct the Operation and Maintenance of existing public utilities or facilities,
including above ground and subsurface energy, fuel or telecommunication
transmission facilities. (Ibid.)
In addition, the Plan will not generate additional solid waste, with the exception
of the waste discussed below: (Final EIR/EIS, p. 4-209.) Moreover, landfill
related activities will be Covered Activities under the Plan, thereby creating a
beneficial impact. (Ibid.) Therefore, the MSHCP will not conflict with or obstruct
continued operation of existing landfill facilities. (Ibid.)
The Plan will not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control Board, or require or result in the construction of
new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. (Ibid.)
Further, it does not require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental effects. (Ibid.)
The Plan will not involve any deficiency in sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, and no new or
expanded entitlements are needed. (Ibid.) The Plan could generate minor amounts
of waste when trash is cleaned up from properties or exotic plant species are
removed. (Ibid.) Adequate landfill capacity exists to accommodate the project's
minimal solid waste disposal needs, and the Plan complies with federal, state, and
local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. (Ibid.)
74
Based on the above, no significant impacts to utilities and service systems will
result from implementation of the MSHCP.
O. Recreation
The MSHCP provides the basis for the development of a system of local, County,
state and federal wildlife and Habitat preserves of local and national importance.
(Final EIR/EIS, p. 4-181.) The MSHCP provides guidelines for public access and
recreation that will be implemented over time within the Reserve System. (Ibid.)
Thus, implementation of this measure would have a less than significant effect on
cross-country travel and camping. (Final EIR/EIS, p. 5-98.)
The potential for expanded hiking, equestrian and other "passive" recreation in the
MSHCP Reserve System is a significant benefit of the Plan. (Final EIR/EIS, p.
4-182.) In addition to trails, the Plan envisions interpretive centers, information
kiosks and other facilities to enhance the open space experience the Reserve
System would provide to the public. (Ibid.)
Thus, the MSHCP will result in significant beneficial impacts for public use, trails
and recreation in the Plan Area by increasing access to open space, restoring and
protecting the underlying environmental resource. (Ibid.) No significant impacts
to recreation will result from implementation of the MSHCP.
Revised Trails Plan. The Revised Trails Plan will provide year-round use of 35
of the 40 trails covered by the Plan, or about 95 of 115 miles (83%) of trails that
spread across the lower elevations of the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains.
75
(Final EIR/EIS, p. 5-84.) These trails extend from the Snow Creek area west of
Palm Springs to Martinez Canyon south of La Quinta, and would assure the
availability of a wide range of mountain hiking, biking, and horseback riding
experiences. (Ibid.) Eighty-eight percent of trails addressed by the Revised Trails
Plan, or 83% of total trail mileage, will be available for year-round use. (Ibid.)
Thirty-eight of the 40 trails (or 105 of. 115 miles of trails) addressed by the
Revised Trails Plan are available for recreation during the maximum -usage
months (January through April). (Ibid.) Only three trails totaling about 10 miles
will be closed during the "hot season" from June 15 through September 30. (Ibid.)
Data exists indicating that as the weather gets hotter, human trail use decreases.
(Final EIR/EIS, p. 5-85.) Thus, considering the extent of available trails in
combination with the lower levels of use, the effects of summer trail closures on
recreational opportunities will be minor. (Ibid.)
Closures of certain trails or trail segments to bicycles will be limited to those that
complement existing closures by precluding access where continuation of use
along a trail would result in a violation. (Ibid.) Therefore, these new restrictions
will have a minor effect on trail use by mountain bicyclists. (Ibid.)
Upon completion of the focused research program, study results and management
recommendations will be integrated into a revised public use and trails
Management Program, using best available science, professional judgment, and
wildlife management principles where study results may be less than definitive.
(Ibid:) Depending on study results, future restrictions on recreational use of
existing trails may or may not be imposed. (Ibid.)
76
Construction of perimeter trails will be deferred under the Revised Trails Plan
pending completion of a focused research. (Final EIR/EIS, p. 5-86.) Deferring the
construction of new trails will not have a substantial effect on recreation. (Ibid.)
Decommissioning of trails will occur only after completion of a focused research
program, and no trails would be decommissioned coincident with approval of the
Revised Trails Plan. (Ibid.) Therefore, impacts to recreational opportunities
resulting from the Revised Trails Plan as it relates to trail rerouting,
decommission, and removal are not anticipated at this time. (Ibid.)
Cross-country travel and camping in essential PBS habitat from January 1 through
September 30 would be prohibited due to potentially affecting recreational access
to certain parts of the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains. (Final EIR/EIS, pp.
5-86 through 5-87.) Thus, opportunities for this activity would not be precluded,
but access would be limited to a 106-day period each year. (Ibid.)
In summary, implementation of the Revised Trails Plan will not substantially
affect trail use opportunities on existing trails in the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto
Mountains Conservation Area.
P. Public Services
Police, fire and other Emergency services operate under the direct authority of or
through a service agreement with Permittees. (Final EIR/EIS, p. 4-209.) Section
7.3.2 of the MSHCP provides that local, state, and federal law enforcement
entities will be allowed access to the Reserve Land as necessary to enforce the
V&/
law. Medical, rescue, fire fighting operations, and other Emergency service
providers will be allowed access to Reserve Lands to carry out operations
necessary for the health, safety, and welfare of the public. (Final EIR/EIS, p.
4-208; MSHCP, § 7.3.2.1.) Local law enforcement agencies and other entities
such as the National Guard or Immigration and Naturalization Service operating
on Reserve Lands are subject to existing state and federal laws. (Ibid.) The
MSHCP will not create additional Permit requirements for these entities beyond
those of existing state and federal laws. (Ibid.) Based upon an assessment of the
potential impacts of the MSHCP, and the provisions listed above in Section 7.3 of
the MSHCP, the Plan will not conflict with or obstruct police and fire protection
services.
The Plan will also not have significant impacts on schools as it will not result in
student increases nor the need to construct new school facilities. (Final EIR/EIS,
p. 4-209.) Because the Plan focuses on Conservation of species and natural
communities and the provision of recreational opportunities, it would not have
adverse impacts on parks but instead will have a positive impact on recreation.
(See Section O above.) Thus, no significant impacts to recreation will result from
implementation of the MSHCP.
Q. Transportation
The MSHCP provides Take Authorization for both construction of planned
roadways and improvements to certain existing roadways, both in and out of the
Conservation Areas, listed in Section 3 and Sections 7.2 and 7.3 of the Plan.
78
(Final EIR/EIS, p. 4-25.) The MSHCP includes design and sitting guidelines for
planned roadways. (Ibid.) The implementation of these guidelines will ensure that
planned roadways are designed and constructed in a manner consistent with the
objectives of the MSHCP, while providing for the efficient passage of persons
and goods through the Coachella Valley, the alleviation of traffic congestion, the
maintenance of level of service standards, and continuation of adequate
Emergency access/evacuation routes. (Final EIR/EIS, pp. 4-25 through 4-27.)
Since the operation, maintenance and construction of existing and planned
roadways are covered activities within the MSHCP Conservation Area, potential
transportation -related impacts resulting from implementation of the MSHCP will
be less than significant.
However, other roads are not Covered Activities under the Plan and will not
receive Take Authorization. (Final EREIS, pp. 4-25 through 4-26.) The Plan
does not preclude Permittees from seeking approval of these roadway segments
through the MSHCP Plan amendment process. (EIR, p. 4-25.) The Plan
amendment process will allow the City of Desert Hot Springs to seek Take
Authorization for these activities. (Ibid.)
The MSHCP will indirectly affect the circulation system by limiting Development
within the Conservation Areas, thus limiting the traffic generation in these areas.
(Final EIRTIS, p. 4-27.) This indirect effect will reduce traffic volumes on the
overall circulation network. (Ibid.) As a practical matter, the trips that would have
been generated in the Conservation Areas would have been relatively limited
given the underlying land uses. (Ibid.)
YM
Some of the Development in the Conservation Areas may be reduced or shifted to
other areas in the Coachella Valley due to acquisition of lands for Conservation
from willing sellers. (Ibid.) This potential shifting of Development will not have
significant impacts because the anticipated trips that would have been generated
from the Conservation Areas would have been relatively low given the land use
designations. (Ibid.) With a shift in the location of Development, the MSHCP
could have the result of a net reduction in regional trip generation. (Ibid.)
No levels of service on any designated major roadway will be affected. (Ibid.)
Emergency access will not be constrained because the Plan will provide Take
Authorization for Emergency access and activities in the MSHCP Reserve
System. (Ibid.)
The MSHCP will not place any lands in Conservation which would conflict with
or hinder the operation of local or 'regional roadways or associated facilities.
(Ibid.) Neither will it result in a substantial increase in traffic volumes, volume to
capacity ratios or applicable policies plans or programs supporting alternative
transportation systems on or serving roadway segments or intersections. (Ibid.)
Emergency access will not be significantly affected nor will the Plan affect design
features of any roadway that resulted in the creation of a hazardous condition.
(Ibid.) Neither railroads nor airports in the Plan Area will be affected by the
MSHCP. (Ibid.)
Based on the above discussed features of the MSHCP, impacts to Transportation
and Circulation are less than significant and no mitigation measures are required.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by CVAG that the following environmental impacts
associated with the MSHCP are potentially significant, but each of these impacts will be avoided
or substantially lessened by prescribed mitigation measures.
A. Aesthetic Resources (Revised Trails Plan)
l . Potentially Significant Impacts:
Potential impacts to aesthetic resources resulting from implementation of the Revised
Trails Plan are limited "to those associated with the construction of new trails, especially those
within and along the lower elevations of the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains. (Final
EIR/EIS, p. 5-102.) However, approval for the construction of new perimeter trails and the Palm
Desert to La Quinta Connector will be deferred pending completion of a focused research
program to further evaluate the effects of recreational trail use on PBS. (Ibid.)
2. Finding:
The Project includes the following mitigation measures that will reduce impacts to a less
than significant level. (Final EIR/EIS, p. 5-106.)
2-a The Coachella Valley Conservation Commission, the Bureau of Land
Management and implementing agencies shall assess new trail proposals and
apply visual resources checklist and design principles as set forth in section 5.6.4
of the Final EIR/EIS. The standards set forth in the BLM Visual Resources
Management Manual shall be applied to the analysis of future trail construction
where applicable. (Final EIR/EIS, pp. 5-103 through 5-106.)
I'M
Findings per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091:
(x) Changes or alternatives have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project
which will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect (Subd. [a] [ 1]).
() Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of
another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted
by such other agency or can and should be adopted by other such agency (Subd. [a][2]).
O Specific economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations, including
provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation
measures of Project alternatives identified in the Final EIR (Subd. [a][3]).
3. Supporting Explanation:
New trail proposals will be evaluated for alignments that will reduce aesthetic impacts to
less than significant levels by subjecting the proposed routes to the visual impact analysis
discussed above. Guidelines will be implemented to avoid and minimize impacts which include
initial pre -design and construction assessments to minimize impacts. (Final EIR/EIS, p. 5-102)
The proposed MSHCP guidelines direct future trail alignments to existing dirt roads wherever
possible. (Ibid.) Trailhead guidelines direct such facilities to areas where they will be compatible
with Conservation Goals and Objectives. (Ibid.) New trail development within Conservation
Areas outside the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains Conservation Area will be subject to
the provisions of NEPA and/or CEQA, and will be required to demonstrate that trail and other
facilities development would not have an adverse impact on visual or scenic resources. (Ibid.)
B. Biological Resources (Revised Trails Plan)
82
1. Potential Significant Impacts: The scientific literature provides some
support for the premise that recreational use of sensitive PBS Habitat (particularly during
lambing and hot seasons) may negatively affect PBS. (Final EIR/EIS, p. 5-25.) Researchers have
determined that, under certain circumstances, human recreation may temporarily displace PBS,
disrupt foraging which may reduce nutrient acquisition, and cause uncertain levels of stress
(Ibid.) However, uncertainty remains concerning the long-term effects or recreational use on
PBS populations. (Ibid.)
2. FindinjZ•
To ensure that recreational disturbance does not significantly affect PBS, the Revised
Trails Plan in the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains Conservation Area has adopted an
Adaptive Management approach with an emphasis on research. (Final MSHCP, § 7.3.3.2.1) The
Trails Plan will focus on multi -agency scientific data gathering to evaluate the effects of
recreation trail use on PBS health, habitat selection, and long-term population dynamics. ([bid)
The overarching goal of this research program is to obtain empirical data from the Plan Area to
guide future trails construction and management. (Ibid.)
In order to assure that impacts from the Revised Trails Plan to PBS are less than
significant, mitigation measures have been developed and integrated into the Revised Trails Plan.
The following mitigation measures will reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
2-a The CVCC and agencies shall develop and implement a research and
monitoring program ("Monitoring Program") on PBS population and habitat use,
which also correlates levels and characteristics of trail use in the Trail Plan area.
M.
(Final MSHCP, § 7.3.3.2; Final EIR/EIS, pp. 5-2 through 5-4, 5-26 through 5-28,
and 5-64 through 5-65.)
2-b The CVCC and agencies shall develop and implement a self -permit
system to monitor levels and characteristics of human use. (Final MSHCP, §
7.3.3.2; Final EIR/EIS, pp. 5-2, 5-28 through 5-29, and 5-65.)
2-c The CVCC and agencies shall close designated trails between June 30 and
October 1. (Final MSHCP, § 7.3.3.2; Final EIR/EIS, pp. 5-2, 5-29, and 5-65.)
2-d Agencies shall construct Perimeter and Palm Desert to La Quinta
Connector Trails following focused biological analysis and appropriate CEQA &
NEPA assessment. (Final MSHCP, § 7.3.3.2; Final EIR/EIS, pp. 5-2 through 5-
35, and 5-65 through 5-66.)
2-e The CVCC and agencies shall develop and implement a public awareness
and education program building on SRSJ Mountains National Monument
resources. (Final MSHCP, § 7.3.3.2; Final EIR/EIS, pp. 5-35 through 5-36, and 5-
66.)
2-f The CVCC and agencies shall annually conduct an assessment of the trails
program and effect on PBS and trail use. (Final MSHCP, § 7.3.3.2; Final
EIR/EIS, pp. 5-2, 5-36 though 5-37, and 5-66.)
2-g The CVCC and agencies shall establish the need for and implement trail
closures in response to population triggers or other Trails Plan criteria. (Final
84
MSHCP, § 7.3.3.2; Final EIR/EIS, pp. 5-4, 5-25 through 5-26, and 5-64 through
5-66.)
2-h The CVCC shall coordinate trail closures with USFWS, CDFG, BLM, or
other parties of interest. (Final MSHCP, § 7.3.3.2; Final EIR/EIS, pp. 5-4, 5-25
through 5-26, 5-64 through 5-66.)
2-1 Art Smith and Mirage Trails shall be rerouted. (Final MSHCP, § 7.3.3.2;
Final EIR/EIS, pp. 5-63 through 5-64.)
21 In the event a ewe group reaches 15 individuals or fewer, responsible
parties shall meet and consult on whether to close, reduce use or 'otherwise
regulate related trails. (Final MSHCP, § 7.3.3.2; Final EIR/EIS, pp. 5-4 and 5-64.)
2-k In the event a ewe group reaches 5 individuals or fewer, responsible
parties shall immediately close related trails, and shall meet and consult on future
trail use and/or otherwise regulate related trails. (Final MSHCP, § 7.3.3.2; Final
EIR/EIS, pp. 5-4 and 5-64.)
2-1 Dogs shall be prohibited on all covered trails, except for special use areas,
as set forth in the Trails Plan. (Final MSHCP, § 7.3.3.2; Final EIR/EIS, pp. 5-41
and 5-67.)
Findings per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091:
(x) Changes or alternatives have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project
which will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect (Subd. [a][1]).
M
O Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of
another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted
by such other agency or can and should be adopted by other such agency (Subd. [a][2]).
() Specific economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations, including
provision, of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation
measures of Project alternatives identified in the Final EIR (Subd. [a][3]).
3. Supporting Explanation:
Because there is no established causative link between recreational use and impacts to
PBS at the time of Project adoption, the Monitoring Program will be used to further evaluate the
effects of recreational trail use on PBS within essential PBS Habitat in the Santa Rosa and San
Jacinto Mountains, and to propose standards to reduce any potential future impacts to below a
level of significance. (Final EIR/EIS, pp. 5-25 through 5-26.)
The Monitoring Program will provide empirical data to inform decisions about future
trails Management Program actions that complement PBS recovery and benefit or enhance PBS
Conservation for the trail use as set forth in the Revised Trails Plan. (Final EIR/EIS, p. 5-27.)
The components of the Monitoring Program will be designed to preclude potentially significant
adverse effects on biological resources, as they will be constructed to serve as a mitigation
strategy for any potentially adverse effects from trail use. (Ibid.)
The Monitoring Program will help provide detail on the levels and type of trail use in the
study area, primarily by the development and implementation of a self -permit system. (Final
EIR/EIS, pp. 5-28 through 5-29.) The system will focus on evaluation of the use of recreational
trails by hikers, equestrians, and mountain bikers as it relates to habitat use by PBS. (Ibid.) The
Monitoring Program will increase the amount of currently available data regarding periodic
documentation of trail use, provide ongoing population surveys of PBS on an annual basis, and
provide other data for consideration by the Trails Management Subcommittee that could result in
trails management actions to reduce any impacts to PBS or their Habitat. (Ibid.)
Hot season trail closures of designated trails between June 30th and October 1st will
avoid significant impacts to PBS and their access to essential water sources during the hottest
and driest times of the year. (Ibid.) These closures will be beneficial to biological resources,
especially PBS, that might otherwise avoid important water sources during this period of greatest
need. (Ibid.)
Proposals to construct perimeter trails and other new trails, including the Palm Desert to
La Quinta Connector Trail, would be deferred until the initial phase of the monitoring and
research program has been completed and potential impacts, if any, can be analyzed and
addressed. (Final EIR/EIS, p. 5-35.) Unless research results show that recreational trail use
would adversely impact PBS health, demography, population sustainability, and population
connectivity, construction of the perimeter trails and other new trails, including the Palm Desert
to La Quinta Connector Trail, could be initiated after appropriate CEQA/NEPA review. (Ibid.)
This deferral will ensure that trail conditions (e.g., use levels) are consistent once the Monitoring
Program is initiated. (Ibid.)
Existing trailhead facilities will be used whenever possible. (Final EIR/EIS, p. 5-30.)
Future proposals for new trails on Reserve Lands in the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains
Conservation Area, other than the identified trails described herein, would be addressed on a
87
case -by -case basis, subject to existing regulations, policies, and land management plans. (Ibid.)
If approved for construction, perimeter trails would generally run parallel to and not rise more
than 200 feet above the toe of slope, except where necessary to avoid residential or other
developed areas or topographically inaccessible terrain. (Ibid.) No perimeter trails will be
constructed within 1/4 mile of wildlife water sources and, where possible, will incorporate
topographic variability. (Ibid.)
The public awareness and education program will enhance cooperation and participation
in the self -permitting program of the Revised Trails Plan through the monitoring and
management of trail use. (Final EIR/EIS, p. 5-35 through 5-36.)
Wildlife managers will consistently track trail use and impacts, if any, to PBS, and
require immediate action to be undertaken if specified PBS population numbers are reduced to
specified thresholds. (Final EIR/EIS p. 5-64.) In the event a ewe group reaches 15 individuals or
fewer, responsible parties shall meet and consult on whether to close, reduce use or otherwise
regulate related trails. (Ibid.) In the event a ewe group reaches 5 individuals or fewer, responsible
parties shall immediately close related trails, and shall meet and consult on future trail use and/or
otherwise regulate related trails. (Ibid.) These actions will ensure that disturbance to PBS from
recreational use, if any, will cease immediately.
Trail rerouting, including the Art Smith and Mirage Trails, will be designed to protect
sensitive resource values (e.g., cultural resources, wildlife Habitat, soils) where feasible. (Final
EIR/EIS, pp. 5-40, and 5-63 through 5-64.) After coordination between the CVCC and federal
and state wildlife agencies, redundant trails will be removed to reduce any current impacts in
these areas. (Ibid.) Trails and trail segments on certain State lands will also be decommissioned
and removed, thereby reducing trail use impacts in sensitive Habitat areas. (Ibid.) Rerouting and
decommissioning of trails will occur following approval of a specific project by the appropriate
project lead agency and these actions would have to meet NEPA and CEQA requirements. (Ibid.)
Thus, impacts associated with deferring the rerouting, decommissioning, and removal of trails
will be less than significant. (Ibid.)
Dogs may disturb PBS and its habitat through intimidation, trail usage and excrement.
Therefore, dogs would be allowed in designated areas only. (Final EIR/EIS, p. 5-41.) An
educational kiosk at each designated dog walking area will inform dog owners about basic PBS
ecology and behavior, as well as potential threats to PBS due to the presence of dogs. (Final
EIR/EIS, p. 5-67.)
The implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce any potential impacts to
PBS from the Revised Trails Plan to below a level of significance.
C. Cultural Resources (Revised Trails Plan)
l . Potential Significant Impacts:
New trails proposed for construction under the Revised Trails Plan have the potential to
affect cultural resources. (Final EIR/EIS, p. 5-76.) Several proposed trails may pass through
areas with varying potential to affect cultural resources. (Final EIR/EIS, pp. 5-76 through 5-77.)
2. Findings:
E:1%
Implementation of the .mitigation measures identified and incorporated in the MSHCP in
conjunction with trails planning will avoid adverse impacts to sensitive cultural resources and
reduce such potential impacts to below a level of significance. (Final EIR/EIS, p. 5-82.)
2-a Agencies shall develop a program of resource assessment for new trails
tiering on Cultural Resources Management Plan ("CRMP") for SRSJ National
Monument. (Final EIR/EIS, p. 5-81.)
2-b The CRMP for the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National
Monument will be tiered upon as appropriate to address the results of research
conducted into the effects of recreation and public visitation on culturally
significant trails, associated cultural sites, and areas identified as sensitive through
Native American consultation. (Final EIR/EIS, p. 5-82.)
2-c The CVCC and agencies shall assess opportunities for and optimization of
public education and resource interpretation. (Final EIR/EIS, p. 5-81.)
Findings per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091
(x) Changes or alternatives have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project
which will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect (Subd. [a] [.1 ]).
() Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of
another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted
by such other agency or can and should be adopted by other such agency (Subd. [a][2]).
9C
( ) Specific economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations, including
provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation
measures of Project alternatives identified in the Final EIR (Subd. [a][3]).
3. Supportin1l Explanation:
Rerouting trails to avoid areas identified as sensitive by Native Americans or that contain
historic properties will avoid impacts and in fact have a positive effect on cultural resources.
(Final EIR/EIS, p. 5-78.) Prior to making recommendations for decommissioning and removing
trails in the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains Conservation Area, an inventory of all trails
in the Conservation Area will occur. (Final EIR/EIS, p. 5-39.) The determination of which trails
would be decommissioned or removed will be made following this inventory. (Final EIR/EIS,
pp. 5-78 through 5-79.) Thus, if an action under any of the public access and use alternatives has
the potential to affect historic properties, cultural resources review will be needed before the
action may be implemented. (Final EIR/EIS, p. 5-76.) Literature reviews, field surveys and data
recovery may be required where appropriate. (Final EIR/EIS, p. 5-75.)
Public Education programs would help fully inform the public of the resource issues at
risk, and would provide the public with useful information so as to maximize the effectiveness of
the Revised Trails Plan. (Final EIR/EIS, p. 5-76.)
The implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce potential impacts to PBS
below a level of significance.
a
D. Land Use and Planning/Recreation (Revised Trails Plan -Alternative alignments
to the Palm Desert to La Quinta Connector Trail)
1. Potential Significant Impacts:
The development of the Revised Trails Plan has involved close coordination with local
jurisdictions and state and federal agencies to assure that the Revised Trails Plan is consistent
and compatible with the objectives of local, state; regional and federal agencies, and tribal land
use plans, polices, and controls for the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains. (Final EIR/EIS,
pp. 5-18 through 5-19.) Based upon the coordinated and integrated nature of the Revised Trails
Plan, impacts to federal, state, regional, local, or tribal land use plans, policies, or controls are
considered to be less than significant. (Final EIR/EIS, p. 5-18.) Nor will the Revised Trails Plan
result in the physical separation of a community or conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. (Ibid.)
Among the trails proposed to be constructed by all alternatives is the Palm Desert to La
Quinta Connector Trail. While the impacts associated with the proposed perimeter trail system
and the preferred alignment for the Palm Desert to La Quinta Connector Trail are determined to
be less than significant, construction will only proceed after further research on PBS/trail user
interactions is completed and additional environmental review in conjunction with a lead
agency's proposing to construct a trail is conducted. (Final EIR/EIS, p. 5-20.)
The only potentially significant adverse impacts for land use could result from the Urban
Fringe and Deep Canyon alignments of the new Palm Desert to La Quinta trail in the Revised
Trails Plan. (Ibid.) The Urban Fringe alignment crosses golf course and residential Development
within the Canyons at Bighorn private gated community. (Ibid.) This potentially poses
92
significant and potential compatibility and security issues. (Ibid.) The Deep Canyon alignment
would utilize substantially more University of California lands than the Proposed Trails Plan.
(Ibid.) Public access to these lands is not allowed in order to provide an undisturbed setting for
scientific research. (Ibid.) Impacts associated with the Deep Canyon alignment are unavoidable if
that alignment is chosen. (Ibid.) Thus, these alignments are explicitly rejected as the Preferred
Alternative alignment addresses and avoids these impacts. (Ibid.)
2. FindinjZ:
The Revised Trails Plan is consistent with the Final MSHCP and provides a consistent
process and guidelines for the development of new trails and associated facilities. (Final
EIR/EIS, p. 5-18.) The Revised Trails Plan does not conflict with any plans adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. (Ibid.) No significant impacts will
result by rejecting the Urban Fringe and Deep Canyon alignments, and implementing the
Preferred Alternative of the Revised Trails Plan.
Further, the Revised Trails Plan has proposed mitigation, to be used in conjunction with
additional CEQA and NEPA review, to further reduce any remaining potential impacts.
2-1 The CVCC and agencies shall finalize the alignments of the perimeter trails and
Palm Desert to La Quinta Connector Trail, assess impacts, and facilitate the construction
of approved trails. (Final EIR/EIS, p. 5-20.)
Findings per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091:
(x) Changes or alternatives have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project
which will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect (Subd. [a][1]).
93
() Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of
another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted
by such other agency or can and should be adopted by other such agency (Subd. [a][2]).
() Specific economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations, including
provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation
measures of Project alternatives identified in the Final EIR (Subd. [a][3]).
3. Supporting Explanation:
Rejection of the Urban Fringe and Deep Canyon alignments will ensure that no
significant impacts result from implementation of the Revised Trails Plan. The mitigation in the
Revised Trails Plan will further reduce any remaining potential impacts and in fact will enhance
recreational opportunities.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the CVAG Executive Committee that it has
considered and rejected as infeasible the alternatives identified in the EIR and described below.
CEQA requires that an EIR evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives to a project, or to the
location of the project, which: (1) offer substantial environmental advantages over the project
proposal, and (2) may be feasibly accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable
period of time considering the economic, environmental, social and technological factors
involved. (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors, (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 566.) An
EIR must only evaluate reasonable alternatives to a project which could feasibly attain most of
the basic project objectives, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. (State
CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6.) In all cases, the consideration of alternatives is to be judged
against a "rule of reason." (Ibid.) The lead agency is not required to choose an alternative
94
identified in an EIR if the alternative (1) does not substantially reduce significant environmental
impacts; (2) does not meet project objectives; or (3) there are social, economic, technological or
other considerations which make the alternative infeasible. (Ibid.)
The primary goals and objectives of the MSHCP are to:
1. Obtain Permits from the Wildlife Agencies to authorize Take for the
Covered Activities. (Final EIR/EIS, p. 1-4.)
2. Protect Core and Other Conserved Habitat for 27 proposed Covered
Species and 27 natural communities, maintain the Essential Ecological
Processes to keep the Core Habitat viable and link Core Habitat to
maximize the Conservation value of the land within the Coachella Valley.
(Final EIR/EIS, p. 1-4.)
3. Improve the future economic development in the Plan Area by providing
an efficient, streamlined regulatory process through which Development
can proceed in an efficient way. The proposed Plan is intended to provide
a means to standardize mitigation/compensation measures for the Covered
Species so that, with respect to public and private Development actions,
mitigation/compensation measures established by the Plan will
concurrently satisfy applicable provisions of Federal and State laws
pertaining to species protection. (Final EIR/EIS, pp. 1-4 through 1-5.)
95
4. Provide for permanent open space, community edges and recreational
opportunities, which contribute to maintaining the community character of
the Coachella Valley. (Final EIR/EIS, p. 1-5.)
A. The Preferred Alternative
In 1994, a Scientific Advisory Committee ("SAC') was established, composed of
members which included biologists from BLM, the National Park Service, United States
Forest Service, the University of California Natural Reserve System, the Center for
Natural Lands Management, CVWD, and representatives of CDFG and USFWS. (Final
EIR/EIS, p. 2-2.) The Plan was developed in consultation with SAC using best available
science. (Final EIR/EIS, p. 2-3.)
The Preferred Alternative will conserve 27 species ("Covered Species") and 27
natural communities. (Final EIR/EIS, pp. 2-4 through 2-5.) The Reserve System proposed
by the Preferred Alternative contains 21 Conservation Areas totaling 724,740 acres of
land, and provides Core Habitat and Other Conserved Habitat for the proposed Covered
Species. (Final EIR/EIS, p. 2-8.)
In addition to the Preferred Alternative, several additional alternatives were
considered. These are the Preferred Alternative without Palm Springs, the Public Lands
Alternative, the Core Habitat with Ecological Processes Alternative, the Enhanced
Conservation Alternative and the No Action/No Project Alternative. (Final EIR/EIS, pp.
2-49 through 2-70.) These alternatives are discussed below. One other alternative
considered would have fully protected the Habitat of the Covered Species in the Plan
Area. (Final EIR/EIS, p. 2-70.) Because all Habitat would have been conserved under this
96
alternative, no Take coverage would have been required, eliminating the need for a
habitat conservation plan. (Ibid.) Thus, that alternative was initially considered but
eliminated from further review. (Ibid.)
Based on comments received on the Draft MSHCP documents, the Preferred
Alternative has been revised in the Final MSHCP. These revisions correct errors in the
Draft MSHCP and reflect revisions made in response to these comments. A summary and
analysis of these revisions is contained in the MSHCP Errata and Final EIR/EIS. No
substantial changes were made from the draft to final plan that significantly increase or
create new impacts not previously considered. Nor has the public been deprived of a
meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of
the Project. Thus, recirculation of the Draft EIR/EIS was not required by CEQA for these
revisions.
B. Preferred Alternative without Palm Springs
1. Description
This alternative is the same as the Preferred Alternative, except it assumes
that the City of Palm Springs would not participate in the Plan. (Final
EIR/EIS, P. 2-49.) The Conservation Areas would remain the same. (Final
MSHCP, p. 3-16.) All Existing Conservation Lands, except those
belonging to the City of Palm Springs, would continue to be part of the
MSHCP Reserve System, as would lands within the city limits of Palm
Springs committed to Conservation by other Permittees. (Ibid.) Under this
alternative, lands under the jurisdiction of Palm Springs do not benefit
97
2.
3
from the Permit. (Final EIR/EIS, p. 2-51.) The Permits would not provide
Take Authorization for any of the Covered Species for Development
occurring within the City and the Development Mitigation Fee would not
be collected in Palm Springs to assist with Plan implementation. (Ibid.) In
addition, one roadway project identified by Palm Springs would not
receive Take Authorization under the Plan. (Final EIR/EIS, p. 4-27.)
Finding
This alternative fails to meet the purposes of basic Project objectives 1 and
3 as compared to the Preferred Alternative.
Supporting Explanation
The MSHCP is intended to conserve species and their Habitats while
improving the future economic Development in the Plan Area. Because
the Preferred Alternative without Palm Springs would retain the same
Conservation Areas, it would benefit Conservation at the expense of
Development.
In addition, because Palm Springs would not receive Take Authorization,
the city would have to independently apply for Take Authorization for
each impacted project. This would hinder the future economic
Development in the Plan Area because the more efficient, streamlined
approach offered to Permittees under the MSHCP would not be an option
for the City of Palm Springs.
For the reasons stated above, the CVAG Executive Committee finds that
the No Palm Springs Alternative does not meet basic Project objectives 1
and 3 to the same extent as the Preferred Alternative and is therefore
rejected.
C. Public Lands Alternative
1. Description
This alternative includes all local, State, and Federal agency land, and
Private Conservation Land, in the Plan Area with Conservation
management levels 1, 2, and 3. (Final EIR/EIS, p. 2-55.) Level 1 lands are
lands consisting of state and federal Wilderness Areas. (Final MSHCP, pp.
2-9.) Level 2 lands contain some Existing Uses, but the overall
management objective is maintenance of natural values. (Final MSHCP, p.
2-9 through 2-10.) Level 3 lands are designated for multiple use while
providing significant Conservation value. (Final MSHCP, p. 2-10.)
This alternative entails no land acquisition; only Core Habitat, Essential
Ecological Processes, and Linkages that happen to be on exiting public
conservation lands or Private Conservation Lands would be protected.
(Final EIR/EIS, p. 2-56.) The local jurisdictions would contribute to the
management of the existing Conservation Areas as mitigation for the
Habitat loss allowed under the Plan. (Final EIR/EIS, p. 2-55.) In total, this
alternative would result in the Conservation of 19.5% less acreage than
under the Preferred Alternative. (Final EIR/EIS, p. 4-57.)
2. Finding
This alternative fails to meet the basic Project objectives, would not
substantially reduce significant environmental impacts and would result in
increased impacts.
3. Supporting Explanation
This alternative conserves far less Habitat acreage than the Preferred
Alternative, and would result in Habitat fragmentation where considerable
private lands exist. (Final EIR/EIS, p. 2-56 through 2-57.) The only
significant reserve areas would be the three existing Coachella Valley
fringe -toed lizard preserves and Dos Palmas ACEC. (Final EIR/EIS, p. 2-
56.) This lack of conservation lands would fail to provide maximum
possible certainty that the viability of Core and Other Conserved Habitat
for several of the 27 Covered Species and 27 natural communities would
be maintained, and would potentially impact wetlands and riparian
habitats.
This alternative entails no land acquisition; only Core Habitat, Essential
Ecological Processes, and Linkages that happen to be on existing public
conservation lands or Private Conservation Lands would be protected.
(Final MSHCP, pp. 3-16 through 3-17.) As a result, sand transport,
watershed, and other ecological processes would not be adequately
protected; Biological Corridors would not be conserved; and Core Habitat
QIff
areas would be fragmented in many instances. (Ibid.) For these reasons,
basic Project objective 2 would not be met.
For the same reasons, it is less likely that the Wildlife Agencies would
authorize a Take Permit for the Covered Species, thus frustrating basic
Project objective 1.
Failure to achieve basic Project objective 1 would, in turn, prohibit
achievement of basic Project objective 3. No Take Authorization would
exist (or would be issued for fewer Covered Species), nor would this
alternative achieve an efficient, streamlined regulatory process for project
Development.
Finally, the benefits derived from achievement of basic Project objective 4
would be far less substantial under this alternative than they would be
under the Preferred Alternative. Recreational opportunities and open space
preservation would be reduced, as this objective is best achieved by
additional land conservation.
In addition, the Public Lands Alternative could adversely affect existing
and planned groundwater recharge facilities in the Plan Area. (Final
EIR/EIS, p. 4-54.) This alternative could result in the need for individual
permits for the development of certain projects, which will be
substantially more difficult to obtain in the absence of a comprehensive
conservation plan such as the Preferred Alternative. (Ibid.) These
uncertainties and the biological resource conservation issues that would
101
remain unresolved under this alternative mean that the potential for
adverse impacts to existing and planned groundwater recharge facilities
could be significant. (]bid.)
Therefore, the CVAG Executive Committee finds that the Public Lands
Alternative does not substantially reduce environmental impacts, could
result in increased impacts as compared with the Preferred Alternative,
fails to meet the basic Project objectives and therefore rejects it.
D. Core Habitat with Ecological Processes Alternative
1. Description
This alternative would result in the conservation of 4.2% less acreage than
under the Preferred Alternative. (Final EIR/EIS, p. 4-241.) It would
establish Conservation Areas intended to protect Core Habitat for the
Covered Species and natural communities included in the Plan, and
Essential Ecological Processes necessary to sustain these Habitats and
some Biological Corridors. (Final EIR/EIS, p. 2-60.) The Conservation
Areas include most of the Public Lands Alternative lands as well as the
acquisition of additional private lands for Core Habitat, Essential
Ecological Processes, and Biological Corridors. (]bid.)
2. Finding
This alternative fails to meet basic Project objectives 1 and 3. In addition,
this alternative fails to fully realize basic Project objective 4.
102
3. Supporting Explanation
Under this alternative, only 697,280 acres of Conservation Area would be
conserved for Habitat, which is approximately 50,000 acres less than the
Preferred Alternative. (Final EIR/EIS, pp. 2-9 and 2-63.) An additional
47,000 acres of Complementary Conservation and Additional
Conservation Lands would be conserved through the Preferred
Alternative. (Ibid.) In addition, unlike the Preferred Alternative, this
alternative did not incorporate the Recovery Plan for PBS in the
Peninsular Range. (Response to Comment I09-22.) Due to this dearth of
conservation lands, there is a greater likelihood that the Wildlife Agencies
would not issue a Take Permit as compared to the Preferred Alternative if
the Core Habitat with Ecological Processes Alternative was adopted by the
Permittees. In that instance, basic Project objective I would not be met.
If basic Project objective I was not met, then basic Project objective 3
would not be met. If no Take Permit was issued (or issued for fewer
species), then no streamlined regulatory process would exist to assist the
processing of Development projects. This, in turn, would fail to improve
the future economic Development in the Plan Area.
This alternative would conserve far less permanent open space and
community edges, and provide fewer recreational opportunities than the
Preferred Alternative. Therefore, this alternative frustrates the purposes of
basic Project objective 4.
103
Therefore, the CVAG Executive Committee finds that the Core Habitat
with 'Ecological Processes Alternative fails to meet basic Project
objectives 1 and 3, and fails to fully realize basic Projective objective 4,
and therefore rejects it.
E. Enhanced Conservation Alternative
1. Description
This alternative would expand upon the MSHCP by adding. Conservation
Lands to the Plan as listed in the EIR/EIS. (Final EIR/EIS, pp. 2-65
through 2-67.)
2. Finding
The Enhanced Conservation Alternative would result in minimal
additional biological value, significant land use conflicts, high acquisition
and management costs, severe edge effects and the possibility of creating
an unmanageable reserve configuration. (Final MSHCP, pp. 3-17 through
3-18.) This alternative fails to meet basic Project objectives 1 and 3, would
not substantially reduce significant environmental impacts, would result in
increased impacts, and would be infeasible.
3. Supporting Explanation
Based on field
visits with the SAC
and representatives from
various
jurisdictions, it
was determined that
not all areas included
in this
104
alternative were biologically viable or Feasible to conserve. (Final
MSHCP, p. 3-18.) Additionally, much of the area anticipated for
Conservation under this alternative would cause significant land use
conflicts and increased costs without significantly increasing Habitat
value. (Ibid.) Significant conflicts with local, county, State or Federal land
use plans, policies or controls would result, and the alternative would
physically divide established communities. (Final EIR/EIS, pp. 4-9
through 4-13.) Some of the proposed conservation acreage already
contains approved Development, which would significantly increase the
acquisition costs. (Ibid.) Existing Development adjacent to these areas
would also create Habitat fragmentation and severe edge effects. (Ibid.)
This alternative would also result in significant adverse impacts to
transportation, and could result in significant impacts to agriculture. (Final
EIR/EIS, pp. 4-28 through 4-30, and p. 4-55.)
The additional Conservation measures proposed under this Alternative
would include existing groundwater recharge basins operated by CVWD,
which could require realigning the recharge basins at great cost. (Final
MSHCP, p. 3-18.) It would also conflict with certain adopted local or
regional flood control plans or projects. (Final EIR/EIS, p. 4-55.)
This Alternative would increase the number of acres to be conserved by
approximately 10,200 acres over the Preferred Alternative, even though
the amount of Habitat included in the Preferred Alternative is sufficient to
I1M
adequately conserve all of the Covered Species. (Final MSHCP, p. 3-18.)
Thus, the Enhanced Conservation Alternative would significantly increase
the cost of the Project without significantly increasing the Habitat value of
the Reserve. (Ibid.)
This Alternative would also conflict with basic Project objectives 1 and 3.
Because more land is conserved, less Take coverage would be issued by
the Wildlife Agencies. This would decrease the future economic
development, which would severely reduce the amount of fees collected.
Because fewer fees would be collected, it would make infeasible the
ability to develop a larger reserve.
Therefore, the CVAG Executive Committee finds that the Public Lands
Alternative does not substantially reduce environmental impacts, results in
increased impacts as compared with the Preferred Alternative, fails to
meet Project objective 3, and therefore rejects it.
F. No Action/No Project Alternative
1. Description
With the No Action/No Project Alternative, land use changes and policies
that are being contemplated to implement the MSHCP would not occur.
2. Finding
106
This Alternative fails to meet all four basic Project objectives, would not
substantially reduce environmental impacts and would result in increased
impacts.
3. Supporting Explanation
Under this alternative, none of the objectives of the Project would be met.
Under the No Project Alternative, the MSHCP would not be approved or
implemented. (Final MSHCP, p. 3-18; Final EIR/EIS, p. 2-70.) Therefore,
there would be no process in place to provide Take Authorization for
Covered Species and no Core Habitat to protect. (Ibid.) Taking no action
in the Plan Area would also fail to improve the future economic
development in the Plan Area as no efficient, streamlined regulatory
process would be in place. In addition, no permanent open space,
community edges or recreational opportunities would be provided.
In addition, the Project's goal to improve the future economic
development of the Plan Area would not be met as no streamlined
regulatory approach would be implemented. Instead, environmental
impacts, especially impacts to biological resources, resulting from
Development activities in the Plan Area would continue to be subject to a
variety of local, state and federal regulatory processes. (Final EIR/EIS, p.
2-70.) Private parties would also be required to mitigate biological impacts
on a project -by -project basis resulting in inconsistent Conservation and
management.
107
In addition, no comprehensive, long-term process would exist for
protecting Core Habitat for 27 proposed Covered Species and 27 natural
communities that occur within the Plan Area. (Final MSHCP, pp. 3-18
through 3-19; Final EIR/EIS, p. 2-70.) Habitat would be conserved on an
ad hoc basis — if at all — rather than in functional blocks. (Ibid.) There
would also be no fee -based funding plan that would generate funds
necessary to support Conservation.
The No Action/No Project Alternative would also fail to substantially
reduce significant environmental impacts and would result in increased
impacts. Because there would not be a coordinated system of Linkages
provided to connect Conservation Areas, impacts to natural communities
and species that would have been covered under the MSHCP would be
exacerbated under this alternative. (Final MSHCP, p. 3-19.) Edge effects
would also be intensified due to the loss of Biological Corridors and
Linkages, increased interaction with humans, and an increase in
Development.
Therefore, the CVAG Executive Committee finds that the No Action/No
Project Alternative does not substantially reduce environmental impacts,
results in increased impacts as compared with the Preferred Alternative,
fails to meet Project objectives, and therefore rejects it.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the CVAG Executive Committee that it has
reviewed and considered the EIR/EIS, and all other applicable documents in the record, in
108
04
evaluating the Project, that the EM/EIS is an accurate and objective statement that complies with
CEQA and reflects CVAG's independent judgment, and that the EIR/EIS and all other volumes
of the MSHCP are incorporated herein by this reference.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the CVAG Executive Committee that the
documents and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings/administrative record for
the County's approval of the Project are located at 73710 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 200, Palm
Desert, California 92260, and the custodian of these records is the Executive Director of CVAG.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the CVAG Executive Committee that it hereby
CERTIFIES the EMJEIS, selects the Preferred Alternative, adopts the MSHCP, approves the IA
and MMRP, and authorizes the Chairman of the Executive Committee to execute the IA.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the CVAG Executive Committee that staff shall file
a Notice of Determination with Riverside County Clerk of the Board of Supervisors within five
(5) working days of final Project approval.
Adopted by the CVAG Executive Committee this ( "—" day of KF-& .t Aty , 2006.
By.
Supervisor Marion Ashley
CVAG Chair
109
li
Attes
ohn M. Wohlmuth
Executive Director