CC Resolution 2007-095RESOLUTION NO. 2007-095
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY, COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LA QUINTA 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 AND
RESCINDING RESOLUTION NUMBER 2006-052
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 Recirculated 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
Resolution No. 2007-095
CVMSHCP — EIR Findings
October 16, 2007
Page 2
WHEREAS, CVAG, at a public meeting on September 10, 2007
reviewed the Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, MSHCP/Natural Communities Conservation
Plan ("NCCP"), Implementing Agreement, and other related documents in the
record before it and by Resolution No. 07-009, certified the Final Recirculated
EIR/EIS, and approved the MSHCP/NCCP and Implementing Agreement; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines sections 15091,
15096 sub. (h), 15381, and other provisions of CEQA, the City of La Quinta
("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 October 16, 2007, independently reviewed and considered the
Final Recirculated 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 Recirculated 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 Recirculated EIR/EIS, Final Recirculated EIR/EIS and other
documentation relating to the Project, and °all oral and written evidence presented
to it;
WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this
Resolution have occurred; and
Resolution No. 2007-095
CVMSHCP - EIR Findings
October 16, 2007
Page 3
WHEREAS, the documents and other materials that constitute the
record of proceedings/administrative record for the City's approval of the Project
are located at 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California, and the custodian of
these records is the City Clerk of the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA AS FOLLOWS:
A. The Final Recirculated EIR/EIS prepared for the MSHCP is hereby received by
the City Council and incorporated herein. (This document is on file in the
City Clerk's Office and may be viewed by the public Monday through Friday,
between the hours of 8:00 am and 5:00 pm.)
B. The City Council hereby finds and determines that the Final Recirculated
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, the
City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the
Final Recirculated EIR/EIS and related documents before it and all of the
environmental effects of the MSHCP, and finds that the Final Recirculated
EIR/EIS reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City.
C. The City Council concurs with the environmental findings in CVAG
Resolution No. 07-009 and adopts these findings, attached hereto as Exhibit
Aand 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 Implementing 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 October, 2007, by the following vote:
Resolution No. 2007-095
CVMSHCP - EIR Findings
October 16, 2007
Page 4
AYES: Council Members Henderson, Kirk, Osborne, Sniff, Mayor Adolph
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
tS�
DON ADOL H, Ma or
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
IIEICA J. MONT CINO, CMZ City Clerk
Cit of La Quinta, California
(City Seal)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
— dhd-j---�
M. KAtHEIVNE JENS City Attorney
City of La Quinta, California
EXHIBIT
RESOLUTION NO.07-009
CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT FOR THE COACHELLA VALLEY MULTIPLE
SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN AND
APPROVING THE COACHELLA VALLEY MULTIPLE
SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN / NATURAL
COMMUNITY CONSERVATION PLAN, AND
IMPLEMENTING AGREEMENT.
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,
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
1,776 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
(which is not a Permittee), Indian Wells, Indio, La Quinta, Palm Desert, Palm Springs, and
Rancho Mirage, as well as portions of unincorporated Riverside County; 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 2002"); 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
WHEREAS, a joint Environmental Impact Report/Statement ("EIR/EIS") was
previously 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
;Mate 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
EIRJEIS; and
WHEREAS, approximately 29 written comments were received by the Lead Agencies in
response to the NOP; and
WHEREUS, the City of Desert Hot Springs elected to withdraw its Incidental Take
'PerTnit application and to be excluded from the MSHCP; and
WHEREAS, the revision of the Plan to remove the City of Desert of Hot Springs caused
the Lead Agencies to prepare a Draft Recirculated MSHCP and a Draft Recirculated
Environmental Impact Report/Supplemental Final Environmental Impact Statement (the "Draft
Recirculated EIR/EIS"); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15085 and 15372, the Draft
Recirculated EIR/EIS was completed and released for public review, and a Notice of Completion
("NOC") was filed at the State Clearinghouse on or about March 26, 2007, and a Notice of
Availability ("NOA") was filed with the Riverside County Clerk on or about March 27, 2007
with a request for a 30-day posting, and a copy of the NOA was published in the Desert Sun on
or about March 24, 2007. The NOC and NOA provided a summary of the Plan and a deadline for
submittal of comments, and contact information for obtaining or reviewing the Plan and the
Draft Recirculated EIR/EIS; and
WHEREAS, CVAG, the lead agency under CEQA, released the Draft Recirculated EIR
component of the Draft Recirculated EIR/EIS for public review and comment on March 26,
2007, which review period ended May 9, 2007; and
WHEREAS, the USFWS, the Federal lead agency, released the Draft Supplemental EIS
component of the Draft Recirculated EIR/EIS for public review and comment on March 30,
2007, which review period ended May 29, 2007; and
WHEREAS, in March 2007, 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 Draft Recirculated EIR/EIS were available
for review. As a result of the issuance of the Property Owner Letter, CVAG has responded to
200 telephone calls; and
WHEREAS, during the official public review period for the Draft Recirculated EIR/EIS,
the Lead Agencies received 67 written comments on the Draft Recirculated EMJEIS, including
two after the close of the official review period; 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 Recirculated EIR/EIS and, pursuant
to Public Resources Code Section 21092.5, CVAG provided copies of the Final Recirculated
EIR/EIS to all commenting agencies; and
WHEREAS, notice of a public hearing to be held on September 10, 2007, was published
in the Desert Sun; and
WHEREAS, postcards to all landowners in the Conservation Areas notifying them of the
September 10, 2007 public hearing and informing them that they may make a public comment of
up to three minutes were mailed on August 31, 2007; and
WHEREAS, CVAG, at a public meeting on September 10, 2007, reviewed the Final
Recirculated EIR/EIS, MSHCP/Natural Communities Conservation Plan ("NCCP"), IA, and
other related documents in the record before it; and
WHEREAS, prior to taking action, the CVAG Executive Committee has heard, been
presented with, reviewed and considered all of the information and data in the administrative
record, including the Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, and all oral and written evidence presented to
it during all meetings and hearings; and
WHEREAS, the Final Recirculated EIR/EIS reflects the independent judgment of the
CVAG and is deemed adequate for purposes of making decisions on the merits of the Project;
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
3
recirculation or additional environmental review under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5;
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, all the procedures of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines have been
met, and the Final Recirculated 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; and
WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have
occurred, now, therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED, FOUND, DETERMINED, AND ORDERED by the, CVAG
Executive Committee on September 10, 2007, 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
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.
0
E. The MSHCP provides for the creation of a Reserve System that will conserve and
manage approximately 723,480 acres of Habitat for the 27 Covered Species which
includes approximately 557,100 acres of Existing Reserves (as of 2006) and
166,380 acres of Complementary Conservation and Additional Conservation
Lands. (MSHCP, Table 4-1.)
F. The MSHCP will serve as a Habitat Conservation Plan ("HCP") pursuant to
Section I0(a)(1)(B) of the ESA, as well as an NCCP pursuant to the NCCP Act of
2002, 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 Recirculated 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.
A. Aesthetics
The MSHCP will result in the Conservation of approximately 723,480 acres of
Habitat and protect an array of scenic resources, thereby having a positive or
beneficial impact on aesthetics. (MSHCP, Table 4-1; Final Recirculated EIR/EIS,
p. 2-9.) 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. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS 4.9-
18.) However, the MSHCP provides guidelines for the planning and Development
of new trails and public access facilities which will avoid and minimize impacts.
(]bid.) 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. (]bid.) 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.
Revised Trails Plan. 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 Recirculated EIR/EIS, p.
5-85.) However,. approval for the construction of new perimeter trails and the
5
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.)
New trail proposals will be evaluated for alignments that feature aesthetic impacts
that are less than significant levels by subjecting the proposed routes to a visual
impact analysis. Guidelines will be implemented to avoid and minimize impacts
which include initial pre -design and construction assessments to minimize
impacts. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, pp. 2-47 through 2-50.) The proposed
MSHCP guidelines direct future trail alignments to existing dirt roads wherever
possible. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 2-48.) Trailhead guidelines direct such
facilities to areas where they will be compatible with Conservation Goals and
Objectives. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 2-47.) 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. (Final Recirculated
EUVEIS, pp. 5-22, 5-44.) Therefore, the impact of the Plan is less than significant.
B. Agricultural Resources
Approximately 1,120 acres of the 84,900 acres of active agricultural use in the
Plan Area will be included in the Conservation Areas. (Final Recirculated .
EIR/EIS, p. 4.5-2.) 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 1,120 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. (Mid.)
Additionally, the MSIICP 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 Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.5-3.)
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 Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.5-2.)
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.
10
C. Air Quality
The MSHCP Plan Area is located within the Salton Sea Air Basin. (Final
Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.9-12.) In and of itself, the MSHCP does not authorize
future Development. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.9-13.) However, Plan
implementation may cause future Development to be displaced to other areas in
the Coachella Valley rather than not occurring at all. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS,
p. 4.9-12.) 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
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 Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.7-2.) 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
Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.7-11.) Approximately 6,328 acres (10%) of all
Habitat and 30% of non-federal lands will be subject to Habitat loss under
the MSHCP. (Ibid.) Approximately 1,339 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. (Ibid.)
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 11,745
acres of Core Habitat in the Thousand Palms Conservation Area, 6,091
acres of Core Habitat in the Indio Hills Palms Conservation Area, 1,594
7
acres of Core Habitat in the East Indio Hills Conservation Area, 4,731
acres of Core Habitat in the Desert Tortoise and Linkage Conservation
Area, and 31,655 acres of Core Habitat in the Mecca Hills/Orocopia
Mountains Conservation Area. (MSHCP, Table 9-2.) Including Other
Conserved Habitat in other Conservation Areas, the total Habitat to be
conserved for this species in the Reserve System is 54,667 acres, or 86%
of all Mecca aster Habitat in the Plan Area (98% of Core Habitat).
(MSHCP, Tables 4-114 and 4-116.) The Plan will also control and manage
activities that degrade this species' Habitat. (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 lentiginosus
var. coachellae. Individuals occurring outside of the MSHCP
Conservation Area will be subject to Habitat loss. (Final Recirculated
EIR/EIS, p. 4.7-5.) Approximately 15,400 acres (42%) of all Habitat and
51% of the non -Federal lands will be subject to Habitat loss under the
MSHCP. (]bid) There will be approximately 928 acres (6%) of Core
Habitat subject to Habitat loss under the MSHCP. (lbid.)
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, 5,325 acres in the Whitewater Floodplain
Conservation Area, 2,884 acres in the Willow Hole Conservation Area,
and 4,292 acres in the Thousand Palms Conservation Area. (MSHCP,
Table 9-4.) To protect the species in the range of environmental conditions
in which it occurs, a total of 4,471 acres of Other Conserved Habitat will
be protected in the Stubbe and Cottonwood Canyons, Whitewater Canyon,
Highway 111/1-10, Upper Mission Creek/Big Morongo Canyon, Edom
Hill, Indio Hills/Joshua Tree National Park Linkage, and Joshua Tree
National Park Conservation Areas. (MSHCP, Table 9-4). In total, the Plan
will ensure protection and management in perpetuity of 11,650 acres of
Habitat for this species, which, together with Existing Conservation Land,
will result in approximately 19,357 acres of Habitat for this species being
conserved under the MSHCP. (MSHCP, Table 4-114.) This includes 94%
of the Core Habitat. (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
U
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.
3. Impacts to the triple -ribbed milkvetch — Astragalus tricarinatus.
Approximately 164 acres (5%) of all Habitat and I 1 % of non-federal lands
will be subject to Habitat loss under the MSHCP. (Final Recirculated
EIR/EIS, p. 4.7-7.) There will be approximately 104 acres (5%) of Core
Habitat subject to Habitat loss under the Plan. (Final Recirculated
EIR/EIS, p. 4.7-7.)
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. (Ibid.) 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. (MSHCP,
Tables 4-114 and 4-116.) The MSHCP will protect Essential Ecological
Processes, including hydrological regimes, necessary to maintain Habitat
for this species. (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. (Ibid.)
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 -ribbed milkvetch Habitat in
Whitewater Canyon, Whitewater Floodplain, Upper Mission Creek/Big
Morongo Canyon, and Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains
Conservation Areas, surveys by an Acceptable Biologist will be required
for activities during the growing and flowering period from February 1 -
May 15. (MSHCP, p. 4-177.) 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.
C
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 Recirculated EIR/EIS,
p. 4.7-13.) Approximately 6,933 acres (9%) of all Habitat and 28% of non-
federal lands will be subject to Habitat loss under the MSHCP. (Ibid.)
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.
(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, 64,377 acres of Core Habitat in the Mecca Hills/Orocopia
Mountains Conservation Area, and 3,838 acres of Other Conserved
Habitat in the Dos Palmas Conservation Area. (MSHCP, Table 9-7.) The
total of Habitat for this species to be conserved in the Reserve System is
68,950 acres, or 87% of all Orocopia sage Habitat in the Plan Area (97%
of Core Habitat). (MSHCP, Tables 4-114 and 4-116.) Threats to the
species and its Habitat are minimal. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.7-
14.) 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. (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
Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.7-14.)
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.
5. Impacts to the Little San Bernardino Mountains linanthus (Linanthus
maculates or Gilia maculate). Approximately 429 acres (13%) of all
Habitat will be subject to Habitat loss under the MSHCP. (MSHCP, Table
4-114; Final Recirculated EIR/EIS p. 4.7-9.) This is 16% of the non-
federal lands in the Plan Area. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.7-9.)
There will be approximately 234 acres (9%) of Core Habitat subject to
Habitat loss under the Plan (0 acres outside and 234 acres inside
Conservation Areas). (Ibid.)
Features of the MSHCP that will reduce Project Impacts. The Plan
conserves large blocks of Habitat for linanthus in the Upper Mission
10
Creek/Big Morongo Canyon Conservation Area totaling 2,235 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 180 acres of Other Conserved Habitat in the
Willow Hole Conservation Area. (MSHCP, Table 9-8.) This is a total of
approximately 2,955 acres (87% of all Habitat for this species in the Plan
Area) to be conserved in the Reserve System. (MSHCP, Table 4-114.) The
Plan also requires that the fluvial processes that sustain Habitat for the
linanthus be maintained. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.7-9.) 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. (MSHCP, Table 4-116.) The Plan will also
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.) In addition, Section 4.4 of the MSHCP
(Required Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures) provides
additional Conservation protection. That provision requires that, to avoid
and minimize impacts to this species as much as possible, salvage of top
soil and/or seeds should occur prior to ground disturbance in accordance
with Section 6.6.1. Salvage should be conducted by or in cooperation with
the CVCC. (MSHCP, p. 4-178.)
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 Recirculated EIRJEIS, p. 4.7-15.) Approximately
13,682 acres (51%) of all Habitat and 61% of non-federal lands will be
subject to Take under the MSHCP. (Ibid.) There will be approximately
533 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.
(MSHCP, Table 9-9.) The MSHCP also ensures Conservation of Essential
Ecological Processes including sand source/transport systems, and
11
implements biological monitoring and Adaptive Management to identify
threats and to ensure Conservation of this species. (]bid.) 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, 5,309 acres of Core Habitat in the Whitewater
Floodplain Conservation Area, 3,869 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, 114 acres
of Other Conserved Habitat in the Edom Hill Conservation Area, 754
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. (MSHCP, Table 9-9.) The total of
Habitat for this species to be conserved in the Reserve System is 12,997
acres, or 48% of all Coachella Valley giant sand -treader cricket Habitat in
the Plan Area (95% of Core Habitat). (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. (MSHCP, Table 4-116.)
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
Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.7-17.) Approximately 9,989 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. (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. (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. (MSHCP,
Table 9-11.) The MSHCP also ensures Conservation of Essential
Ecological Processes including sand source/transport systems; maintains
Biological Corridors and Linkages to allow connectivity and shifts in
12
distribution over time; and implements biological monitoring and
Adaptive Management to identify threats and to ensure Conservation of
this species. (MSHCP, Table 4-116.) All of these actions will conserve
this species in perpetuity. Conservation under the Plan includes 1,540
acres of Core Habitat in the Snow Creek/Windy Point Conservation Area,
and a total of 10,509 acres of Other Conserved Habitat in eleven
Conservation Areas. (MSHCP, Table 9-11.) The total of Habitat for this
species to be conserved in the Reserve System is 12,049 acres, or 53% of
all Coachella Valley Jerusalem cricket Habitat in the Plan Area (91% of
Core Habitat). (MSHCP, Tables 4-114 and 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
Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.7-20.) 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
protected and managed. (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. (MSHCP, Table 9-13) 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. (MSHCP,
Table 4-116.) 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 Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.7-21.)
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.
13
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 Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.7-23.)
Approximately 88 acres (4%) of all Arroyo toad Habitat and I I% of non -
Federal lands will be subject to Take Authorization under the MSHCP.
(Ibid.)
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 Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.7-24.) 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. (MSHCP,
Tables 4-114 and 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.
(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.
(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.
10. Impacts to the desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizi:). 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 Recirculated EIR/EIS, p.
4.7-33.) Approximately 67,229 acres (12%) of all Habitat and 28% of non -
Federal lands will be subject to Take Authorization under the MSHCP.
(Ibid.; MSHCP, Tables 4-114 and 4-116.) There will be approximately
11,478 acres (3%) of Core Habitat subject to Take Authorization under the
Plan. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.7-33.)
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. (MSHCP, Table 4-116.) The MSHCP will
result in the Conservation of approximately 145,911 acres of modeled
Habitat together with Existing Conservation Land or a total of 491,810
acres conserved, including 365,379 acres of Core Habitat. (MSHCP, Table
9-15.) The MSHCP ensures Conservation of Core Habitat in seven
14
Conservation Areas from western to eastern parts of the Plan Area.
(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
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,
26,519 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,
84,151 acres of Core Habitat in the Desert Tortoise and Linkage
Conservation Area, and 109,951 acres of Core Habitat in the Mecca
Hills/Orocopia Mountains Conservation Area. (MSHCP, Table 9-15.) The
MSHCP protects a total of 126,431 acres of Other Conserved Habitat in
fourteen Conservation Areas across a range of environmental conditions
within which the species occurs. (Mid.) The total of Habitat for this
species to be conserved in the Reserve System is 491,810 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). (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. (MSHCP, pp. 9-94 through 9-95.)
In addition, the Plan addresses recovery units within the Plan Area that
were identified by the Desert Tortoise Recovery Plan in 1994. (Final
Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.7-34.) This Recovery Plan recommended
establishment of the 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 activities in modeled desert tortoise Habitat within
Conservation Areas. (MSHCP, p. 4-170.) The Plan provides a specific
procedure for such surveys.
For Operations and Maintenance ("O&M") activities in the Conservation
Areas, personnel undertaking such activities are to be alert for the
presence of desert tortoise. (MSHCP, p. 4-171.) If a tortoise is spotted,
activities adjacent to the tortoise's location will be halted and the tortoise
will be allowed to move away from the activity area. (Ibid.) If the tortoise
is not moving, it will be relocated by an Acceptable Biologist to nearby
15
suitable Habitat and placed in the shade of a shrub. (Ibid.) To the
maximum extent Feasible, O&M activities will avoid the period from
February 15 and October 31. (Ibid.)
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. (MSHCP, pp. 4-171 through 4-176.)
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 Recirculated
EIR/EIS, p. 4.7-26.) Approximately 13,681 acres (51%) of all Habitat and
61% of non -Federal lands will be subject to Take Authorization under
Plan. (Ibid.) (MSHCP, Table 4-114.) There will be approximately 606
acres (5%) of Core Habitat subject to Take Authorization under the
MSHCP. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS p. 4.7-26.)
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 Recirculated
EIR/EIS, pp. 4.7-26 to -27.) The MSHCP will result in the Conservation
of 6,999 acres of modeled Habitat together with Existing Conservation
Land for a total of 12,998 acres conserved, including 11,245 acres (95%)
of Core Habitat. (MSHCP, Table 9-16; Table 4-116.). This includes 1,244
acres of Core Habitat in Snow Creek/Windy Point Conservation Area,
5,309 acres of Core Habitat in Whitewater Floodplain Conservation Area,
823 acres of Core Habitat at Willow Hole Conservation Area, and 3,869
acres of Core Habitat in Thousand Palms Conservation Area. (MSHCP,
Table 9-16.) In addition, the MSHCP will conserve 1,754 acres of Other
Conserved Habitat in five Conservation Areas, representing a range of
environmental conditions in which the species occurs. (MSHCP, Table
9-16.) The Plan will also conserve the scattered blowsand deposits and
occupied Habitat in the Indio Hills. (Final Recirculated EIRMIS, pp. 4.7-
27 to -28.)
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 Recirculated EIR/EIS,
16
p. 4.7-29.) 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 Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.7-29.)
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,
including those occurring on the Big Dune. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS,
p. 4.7-38.) Approximately 17,562 acres (54%) of all predicted Habitat,
65% of non -Federal predicted Habitat lands, 1,720 acres (33%) 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
97 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 7,334 acres of modeled Habitat together
with Existing Conservation Land for a total of 13,908 acres conserved.
(MSHCP, Table 9-17.) Only one area of the MSHCP was delineated as
Core Habitat for this species, at the Thousand Palms Preserve. (MSHCP,
Table 9-17.) The Planning Team for this Plan delineated approximately
4,148 acres as Core Habitat. (Ibid.) Conservation Objectives ensure the
Conservation of at least 4,051 acres in the Thousand Palms Conservation
Area. (Ibid.) In addition, the MSHCP will conserve approximately 587
acres of Other Conserved Habitat in East Indio Hills and 5,134 acres of
Other Conserved Habitat in Dos Palmas. (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
17
Habitats; and Implement biological monitoring and Adaptive Management
to ensure Conservation of this species. (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 Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.7-63.) Approximately 63 acres
(8%) 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. (MSHCP, p. 9-129.) Ninety-one percent of the modeled
clapper rail habitat will be conserved under the Plan. (MSHCP, Table
4-116.) The MSHCP will result in the Conservation of 426 acres of
modeled Habitat together with Existing Conservation Land for a total of
697 conserved acres. (Ibid.) In addition, the CVWD will establish 66 acres
of permanent replacement rail Habitat. (MSHCP, Table 4-116.)
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.
(Aid.) Finally, because this rail is a California Fully Protected Species, the
required surveys will be conducted in accordance with law. (Aid.)
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 Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.7-43.)
Approximately 59 acres (9%) of all Habitat and 13% of non -Federal lands
will be subject to Take under the Plan. (Mid.)
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
conserved. (MSHCP, p. 9-135.) Ninety-one percent of the modeled
clapper rail Habitat will be conserved under the Plan. (MSHCP, Table
4-116.) The MSHCP will result in the Conservation of 386 acres of
modeled Habitat together with Existing Conservation Land for a total of
616 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. (Ibid.)
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
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 Recirculated EHUEIS, p. 4.7-41.)
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. (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. (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 723,480 acre Reserve System will contain sufficient
Habitat to maintain a viable population of burrowing owls within the Plan
Area. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.7-41.)
19
The Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures listed in Section
4.4 of the MSHCP will minimize Take of burrowing owls. (Final
Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.7-41.) 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.
(MSHCP, Table 4-116.) 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 Recirculated EIR/EIS,
p. 4.7-53.) Approximately 168 acres (6%) of all breeding Habitat (11 % on
non -Federal lands) and 15,351 acres (27%) 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 willow flycatcher breeding Habitat and 71 % of the
modeled willow flycatcher migratory Habitat is conserved under the Plan.
(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. (Ibid.) The MSHCP
will result in the Conservation of 19,534 acres of modeled migratory
Habitat together with Existing Conservation Land for a total of 40,846
acres of migratory Habitat conserved. (Ibid.) The Conservation Areas in
the Plan will protect 96% of the occupied and potential breeding Habitat
and 95% 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 Recirculated EIIUEIS, pp. 4.7-53 to -
54.) 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.
(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.)
20
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
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. (MSHCP, pp. 4-169 to -170.) 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.)
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 Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.7-47.) Approximately
5,172 acres (75%) of all Habitat and 76% of non -Federal lands will be
subject to Take under the Plan. (Ibid.) There will be approximately 125
acres (9%) of Core Habitat subject to Take under the Plan. (Mid.)
Features of the MSHCP that will reduce Project Impacts. The MSHCP
will result in the Conservation of 1,418 acres of modeled Habitat together
with Existing Conservation Land for a total of 1,676 acres of land
conserved. (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 809 acres of occupied
Iiabitat in the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel and Delta
Conservation Areas. (Ibid.; MSHCP, Table 9-22.) Implementation of the
Plan will provide for the Conservation of the unprotected portions of
crissal thrasher Habitat. (Ibid.)
PAI
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. (MSHCP, p. 4-170.) If nesting crissal
thrashers are found, a 500-foot buffer, or a buffer to the 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. (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 [econtei). 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 Recirculated EIIUEIS, pp. 4.7-44 to -45.) Approximately
96,133 acres (40%) 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-five
percent of the predicted Other Conserved Habitat for Le Conte's thrasher
will be conserved and 54% of the modeled Habitat will be conserved
under the Plan. (Final Recirculated MSHCP, Table 4-116.) The MSHCP
will result in the Conservation of 73,204 acres of modeled Habitat together
with Existing Conservation Land for a total of 132,456 acres of Other
Conserved Habitat in twenty Conservation Areas across a range of
environmental conditions within which the species occurs. (Final
Recirculated MSHCP, Table 4-116.)
Management and monitoring activities will ensure Conservation of this
species, including control of activities that degrade its Habitat. (MSHCP,
Table 4-116.) Biological Corridors and Linkages will be maintained for
22
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. (MSHCP, p. 4-176.) 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.
(Mid.) No construction will be permitted within the buffer during the
breeding season of January 15 - June 15 or until the young have fledged.
(Ibid.)
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 Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.7-51.)
Approximately 761 acres (21%) of all breeding Habitat (31% on non -
Federal lands) and 14,775 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 71% of the modeled
vireo migratory Habitat will be conserved under the Plan. (MSHCP, Table
4-116.) The MSHCP will result in the Conservation of 1,282 acres of
modeled breeding Habitat together with Existing Conservation Land for a
total of 2,911 acres of breeding Habitat conserved. (Ibid.) The MSHCP
will result in the Conservation of 19,301 acres of modeled migratory
Habitat together with Existing Conservation Land for a total of 40,510
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 Recirculated EIIVEIS, p. 4.7-51.) CVWD will establish 44
acres of permanent Sonoran cottonwood -willow riparian forest in these
two areas. (MSHCP, Table 4-116.)
Implementation of biological monitoring and Adaptive Management will
also occur to ensure Conservation of the vireo. (Ibid.) Essential Ecological
23
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 0&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. (MSHCP, pp. 4-169 to -170.) 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 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 Recirculated EIIUEIS, p. 4.7-49.)
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.
(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. (MSHCP,
Table 9-25.)
Management and monitoring activities will ensure Conservation of this
species, including control of activities that degrade its Habitat. (MSHCP,
Table 4-116.) The Plan calls for coordination with federal agencies
regarding appropriate management prescriptions for Pinyon juniper
woodland and chaparral Habitats and control.of brown -headed cowbird
nest parasitism. (Ibid.)
24
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 Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.7-58.)
Approximately 168 acres (6%) of all breeding Habitat (11% on non -
Federal lands) and 15,371 acres (27%) of migratory Habitat (42% on non -
Federal lands) will be subject to Take under the Plan. (Final Recirculated
EIR/EIS, p. 4.7-59.)
Features of the MSHCP that will reduce Project Impacts. Ninety-four
percent of the modeled yellow warbler breeding Habitat and 71% of the
modeled yellow warbler migratory Habitat is conserved under the Plan.
(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. (]bid.) The MSHCP will result in the Conservation of 19,534
acres of modeled migratory Habitat together with Existing Conservation
Land for a total of 40,846 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 Recirculated EIR/EIS, p.
4.7-59.) 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. (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. (Aid.)
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 0&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
FW
yellow warbler. (MSHCP, pp. 4-169 to -170.) 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 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 Corridors 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 Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.7-61.) Approximately 168
acres (6%) of all breeding Habitat (11% on non -Federal lands) and 15,371
acres (27%) 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. (MSHCP, Table 4-116.)
The Plan will ensure the protection and management of 1,160 acres of
modeled breeding Habitat together with Existing Conservation Land for a
total of 2,829 acres of breeding Habitat conserved. (Ibid.) The MSHCP
will result in the Conservation of 19,414 acres of modeled migratory
Habitat together with Existing Conservation Land for a total of 40,583
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 Recirculated EIR/EIS, p.
4.7-61.) 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. (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
26
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 -breasted chat. (MSHCP, pp. 4-169 to -170.) 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. (]bid.) If surveys conducted during the nesting season
document that Covered nesting riparian bird Species are not present, the
Covered Activity may proceed. (]bid.)
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 Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.7-56.) Approximately 168
acres of all breeding Habitat and 15,371 acres of migratory Habitat will be
subject to Take under the Plan. (MSHCP, Table 4-114.)
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.
(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 19,534 acres of
modeled migratory Habitat together with Existing Conservation Land for a
total of 40,846 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 Recirculated EIR/EIS, p.
4.7-57.) 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. (MSHCP, Table 4-116.) In addition, the Plan requires that,
KFA
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. (]bid.)
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
summer tanager. (MSHCP, pp. 4-169 to -170.) 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
Plan Area. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.7-75.) 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 Recirculated 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
1OW
of yellow bat Habitat. (Ibid.) The Plan will also conserve occupied and
potential Habitat in native fan palm oases. (Ibid.)
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 Recirculated EIR/EIS, p.
4.7-75.)
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
of Desert Hot Springs, on the Big Dune and along the Coachella Canal
south of I-10. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.7-69.) Approximately
61,243 acres (60%) of all Habitat and 69% of non -Federal lands will be
subject to Take under the MSHCP. (Ibid.) There will be approximately
1,319 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.
(MSHCP, Table 4-116.) The MSHCP will result in the Conservation of
20,469 acres of modeled Habitat together with Existing Conservation
Land for a total of 33,826 acres conserved. (Ibid.)
Using the criteria set forth by the Scientific Advisory Committee, the
MSHCP has established Conservation Areas to protect this species. (Final
Recirculated ENVEIS, p. 4.7-70.) Four of these Conservation Areas
contain Core Habitat and 16 protect Other Conserved Habitat. (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 Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.7-70.) 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 (MSHCP, Table 4-116.)
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 Recirculated EIR/EIS
p. 4.7-70.) 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
pit
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. (]bid.) 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. (]bid.)
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. (MSHCP, p. 4-176).
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
Processes to sustain the Habitat, and protect Biological Corridors and
Linkages, as appropriate.
26. Impacts to the Palm Springs pocket mouse (Perognathus longimembris
bangs[). 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 1-10 and in
the North Shore area. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.7-72.)
Approximately 75,304 acres (53%) of all Habitat and 62% of non -Federal
lands will be subject to Take under the MSHCP. (Aid.) There will be
approximately 1,993 acres (7%) 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.
((MSHCP, Table 4-116.) This includes protection of 77% of the known
occurrences for the mouse. The MSHCP will result in the Conservation of
35,605 acres of modeled Habitat together with Existing Conservation
Land for a total of 56,856 acres conserved. (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
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
30
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.)
In addition, the Required Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation
Measures of Section 4.4 of the MSHCP require that Covered Activities,
including Flood Control -related construction activities, avoid impacts to
the Palm Springs pocket mouse and its habitat in the Upper Mission
Creek/Big Morongo Canyon and Willow Hole Conservation Areas, related
to clearing, translocation, revegetation, and trapping and holding.
(MSHCP, pp. 4-177 to -178.)
27. Impacts to Peninsular Bighorn Sheep (Ovis Canadensis neisom).
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 Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.7-65.) 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-six
percent of the Essential Habitat for the PBS will be conserved under the
Plan. (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. (Ibid.)
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. (]bid.) 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. (MSHCP, Table 4-116.) 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
31
January I — June 30 period if necessary to complete the activity, upon
concurrence with the Wildlife Agencies. (MSHCP, p. 4-176.)
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 Pennittees
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. (MSHCP, pp. 4-176 to -
177.) The plan and schedule will be prepared within one (1) year of Permit
issuance. (MSHCP, p. 4-177.)
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. (MSHCP, pp. 6-21 through 6-30; 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. (MSHCP, pp. 4-178 to -
183.)
Finally, the Species Objectives for PBS (Section 9.8.4.1 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 Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.7-67.)
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.
Revised Trails Plan. To ensure that recreational disturbance does not
significantly affect Peninsula Bighorn Sheep ("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. (MSHCP, §
7.3.3.2) 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. (Ibid) The overarching goal of this research
32
program is to obtain empirical data from the Plan Area to guide future trails
construction and management. (Ibid.)
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 ensure that any potential future impacts are below a level of
significance. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, pp. 5-16 through 5-25.)
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. (Ibid.) 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. (Ibid.) 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 15th and September
30th 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 research
program has been completed and potential impacts, if any, can be analyzed and
addressed. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 2-31.) 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 Recirculated
EIR/EIS, p. 2-35.) Future proposals for new trails on Reserve Lands in the Santa
tic]
Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains Conservation Area, other than the identified
trails described herein, would be addressed on a case -by -case basis, subject to
existing regulations, policies, and land management plans. (Final Recirculated
EIR/EIS, p. 2-32.) 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. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 2-33.)
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 Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 5-22.)
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 Recirculated EIR/EIS p. 2-
37.) 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 Recirculated EIR/EIS, pp. 5-45.) 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
Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 5-46.) 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 Recirculated
ERVEIS, p. 5-46.)
The implementation of the Plan will therefore ensure that any potential impacts to
PBS from the Revised Trails Plan are maintained below a level of significance.
34
E. Cultural Resources
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 Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.9-9.) 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. (Ibid.) 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. (Bid.) 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.
Revised Trails Plan. New trails proposed for construction under the Revised
Trails Plan have the potential to affect cultural resources. (Final Recirculated
EIR/EIS, p. 5-59.) Several proposed trails may pass through areas with varying
potential to affect cultural resources. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, pp. 5-59
through 5-60.)
Implementation of the provisions of the MSHCP in conjunction with trails
planning will avoid adverse impacts to sensitive cultural resources and ensure that
such potential impacts are maintained below a level of significance. (Final
Recirculated EIR/EIS, pp. 5-59 to -60.)
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 Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 5-59.) 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 Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 5-60.) The
determination of which trails would be decommissioned or removed will be made
following this inventory. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, pp. 5-60 through 5-61.)
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 Recirculated EIRJEIS, p. 5-56.)
Literature reviews, field surveys and data recovery may be required where
appropriate. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 5-56.)
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 Recirculated
ElR/EIS, p. 5-22.)
The implementation of the Plan will thus ensure that potential impacts to PBS are
maintained below a level of significance.
35
F. Environmental Justice
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 Recirculated EIR/EIS, pp. 4.9-27 through 4.9-28.) 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 met approximately once a month from 1998
through 2005, 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, and (2) 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.; 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. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS p. 4.9-28.) 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 Recirculated EIR/EIS, pp. 4.9-24 through 4.9-28.)
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 Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.9-1.) 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 Recirculated EIRJEIS, pp. 4.9-28 through 4.9-29.) Nor
will the Plan facilitate a hazardous release of materials, substances or waste.
(Final Recirculated EIR/EIS p. 4.9-29.) 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
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.
(Final Recirculated EIR/EIS p. 4.9-30.) 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. (Mid.) 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. (Ibid.)
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 Recirculated EIR/EIS 4.9-29.) 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. (Ibid.)
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 Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.6-4.) The MSHCP ensures, rather than
interferes with, the continued functioning of these activities in several ways. For
example, the 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 Floodplain Preserve in perpetuity, and
also cooperate with CVCC in the Conservation of other CVWD lands in the
Conservation Areas. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.6-4.)
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. (Final Recirculation EIl2/EIS 4.6-5.)
Further, the Plan will not in itself permit housing within a 100-year flood hazard
37
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.)
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. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.6-6.) Because the
MSHCP will conserve many floodplain areas, it will reduce the potential for
structures to be built in such areas. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.6-5.)
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. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.6-6.)
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 Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.6-7.)
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.
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.
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 Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.2-6.) The MSHCP also
does not change existing general plan land use designations. In fact, several
38
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. (MSHCP, pp. 6-19
through 6-21.) 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. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p.
4.2-6.)
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
controls for the Plan Area through ongoing consultation and coordination. (Final
Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.2-7.) Based upon the coordinated and integrated
nature of the MSHCP, impacts to Federal, state, regional, local, or tribal land use
plans, policies, or controls are considered to be less than significant for CEQA
analysis purposes. (Ibid.)
Because the distribution of the Conservation Areas accommodates the physical
integrity of the communities, the MSHCP does not contribute towards the
physical separation of a community. (Ibid.) The one potential exception is due to
the Upper Mission Creek/Big Morongo Canyon Conservation Area, which 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.; Final Recirculated EIIVEIS § 4.8)
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 Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 5-12.)
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 Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 5-13.) This approach will ensure that
trail conditions (e.g., use 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.
39
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 Recirculated EIR/EIS, pp. 5-13.) 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 Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 5-13.)
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.)
The construction and use of new perimeter trails described in Element 5 of the
Proposed Trail Plan will be a Covered Activity unless research results indicate
that these trails would adversely affect bighorn sheep. Current analysis indicates
that these perimetertrails would not substantially impact Peninsular bighorn
sheep populations, nor result in Take. The element provides for additional
research through Element 2 to further analyze impacts to Peninsular bighorn
sheep from recreational trail use, thereby confirming and expanding upon
previous impact assessments. Proposals to construct perimeter trails and other
new trails, including the Palm Desert to La Quinta Connector Trail, would be
deferred. This deferral would ensure that trail conditions (e.g., use levels) are as
consistent as possible once the research and monitoring programs are initiated.
Construction of these new trails could be initiated as soon as feasible, depending
on funding availability and acquisition of easements or other authorizations, and
completion of applicable NEPA and CEQA requirements and upon results of
research and the effect upon PBS. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS pp. 5-21 to 5-22.)
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 case -by -case basis, subject to existing
regulations, policies, and land management plans. Such future trail proposals
would require a Minor Amendment to the Plan with Wildlife Agency
concurrence. Impacts associated with deferring the construction of new trails are
expected to be less than significant for CEQA analysis purposes. (Final
Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 5-22.) 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 5-21.) The Palm Desert to La
Quinta Connector Trail will be deferred pending completion of a focused research
program to evaluate the effects of recreational trail use on wild sheep in the
Conservation Area and a subsequent research program evaluating the effects of
this portion of the Connector Trail on captive sheep at the Bighorn Institute.
Ell
(Final EIR/EIS, p. 5-22.) 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
Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.4-2.) 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 under the MSHCP. (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 and the
consumption of land under the MSHCP does not physically affect the resource.
(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. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, pp. 4.4-3 to -5.)
Impacts to energy resources, specifically wind energy conservation systems
(turbines) within the Plan Area would be less than significant. (Final Recirculated
EIR/EIS, p. 4.4-5.) Given the substantial windfarm development that has already
occurred and the continuing retrofit of turbines on existing sites, as well as the
41
continued relatively low impact of windfarm Development, existing and future
Development of regional wind resources are not significantly in conflict with or
constrained by adoption and implementation of the proposed Plan.. (Final
Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.4-5.) The Plan provides Take Authorization for ground
disturbance associated with windfarm Development in Conservation Areas that is
consistent with applicable Conservation Goals and Objectives. Ground
disturbances include roads and staging areas, foundation pads and storage areas,
with further disturbance limited once constructed. The retrofitting of wind
turbines is a proposed Covered Activity only with respect to impacts from ground
disturbance. (Final Recirculated EBUMS, p. 4.4-5.)
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 Recirculated EIRMS, p. 4.4-6.) 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 Recirculated EIR/EIS, pp. 4.9-16 to -17.) The MSHCP will
result in very little construction or maintenance activities that will generate
significant noise impacts. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.9-17.) 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
Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.8-1.) 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 Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.8-6.) 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
42
low or very low densities, and would result in a negative cash flow to the
jurisdiction at buildout. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.8-7.) 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 Recirculated EIR/EIS, at pp. 4.8-6 through 4.8-7.) 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. (Final
Recirculated EIR/EIS, pp. 4.8-7 through 4.8-21.) For the nine cities within the
Plan Area, a combined 43,262.22 acres of Development potential lie outside the
proposed Conservation Areas, and approximately 9,181.7 acres with at least some
(and often constrained) Development potential lie within the Conservation Areas.
(Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, pp. 4.8-7 through 4.8-21.) Regarding Riverside
County, 153,270.79 acres of developable lands are within the Conservation Areas
and 90,512.63 acres are outside. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.8-19.)
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 Recirculated EIR/EIS, pp.
4.8-7 through 4.8-21.) 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 Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.8-
29.)
Growth Constraints. Future residential Development will be minimally
impacted in Coachella, Indian Wells, Indio, and La Quinta. (Final Recirculated
EIR/EIS, pp. 4.8-7 to -22.) In the remaining cities and in the unincorporated
portions of the Plan Area, impacts will be primarily on lands within Conservation
Areas but, as 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 Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.8-
24.) Given the fact that the Plan Area encompasses over 1.1 million acres, impacts
to future commercial Development are less than significant.
43
Approximately 14,000 of the 15,000 acres of land currently designated for
industrial use are located outside the Conservation Areas. (Final Recirculated
EMMS, p. 4.8-24.) 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.
Affordable Housing. In most jurisdictions, there will be minimal or no impact on
affordable housing, since lands designated for medium to high density residential
Development (where affordable housing is most likely to occur) occur outside the
Conservation Areas. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, pp. 4.8-22 to -24.) Exceptions
occur in Palm Desert, and the unincorporated areas of the Plan Area. (Ibid.) hi
Palm Desert, lands designated for medium density Development could yield up to
170 dwelling units, whereas the 100 acres outside Conservation Areas could yield
706 dwelling units. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, Table 4-16.) In the
unincorporated areas, the ratio is 1,159:14,398. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS,
Table 4-19.) 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 Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.8-24.) 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 Recirculated EIR/EIS, 4.8-24.) 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
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 Recirculated EIR/EIS,
p. 4.9-19.) 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
VJ
can proceed and be maintained. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.9-20.) 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 Recirculated EIR/EIS, pp. 4.9-20 to -21.) Nor will it conflict with
or 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 Recirculated EUVEIS, p. 4.9-22.) Moreover,
landfill related activities will be Covered Activities under the Plan, thereby
creating a beneficial impact. (Final Recirculated EUVEIS, p. 4.9-22.) 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. (Final
Recirculated EUVEIS, p. 4.9-23.) 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. (Mid.) 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.)
Based on the above, no significant impacts to utilities and service systems will
result from implementation of the MSHCP.
1h,
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 Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.9-10.) 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.
The potential for expanded hiking, equestrian and other "passive" recreation in the
MSHCP Reserve System is a significant benefit of the Plan. (Final Recirculated
EIIUEIS, p. 4.9-10.) 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. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS,
pp. 4.9-10 to -11.) 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 38
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.
(Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 5-67.) 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.
(Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 5-68.) 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). (Aid.) 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 Recirculated EIIUEIS, p. 5-68.) 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. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 5-69.)
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
46
wildlife management principles where study results may be less than definitive.
(kid.) Depending on study results, future restrictions on recreational use of
existing trails may or may not be imposed. (Ibid.)
Construction of perimeter trails will be deferred under the Revised Trails Plan
pending completion of focused research program. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p.
5-69.) 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. (Final Recirculated EIRJEIS, p. 5-70.) 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 Recirculated
EIR/EIS, pp. 5-71 through 5-72.) 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 Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.9-
22.) 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 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 Recirculated
EIR/EIS, p. 4.9-22; 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
Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.9-22.) Because the Plan focuses on Conservation of
species and natural communities and the provision of recreational opportunities, it
47
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.
(Final Recirculated EHUEIS, p. 4.3-7.) The MSHCP includes design and siting
guidelines for planned roadways. (]bid.) 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 Recirculated EIR/EIS,
pp. 4.3-6 through 4.3-9.) 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 Recirculated EIR/EIS, pp. 4.3-7.) The Plan
does not preclude Permittees from seeking approval of these roadway segments
through the MSHCP Plan amendment process. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p.
4.3-7.) The City of Desert Hot Springs would be required to seek Take
Authorization for non -Covered Activities by separate consultations with the
Wildlife Agencies.. (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 Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.3-9.) 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.)
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
48
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 the CVAG Executive Committee that the Final
Recirculated EIR/EIS and the evidence in the administrative record before it confirms that
implementation of the MSHCP will result in no significant cumulative adverse environmental
impacts with regard to: Land Use Compatibility (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, pp. 9-11; 9-13);
Transportation, Traffic, and Circulation (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, pp. 9-14 to -15; 9-17);
Mineral, Energy, and Timber Resources (Final Recirculated EII2/EIS, pp. 9-17 to -19);
Agricultural Lands and Activities (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, pp. 9-19 to -21); Hydrology and
Water Quality (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, pp. 9-21 to -22; 9-25); Flooding and Hydrology
(Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, pp. 9-21 to -22; 9-25); Water Resources/Quality (Final
Recirculated EIR/EIS, pp. 9-25 to -29); Biological Resources (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, pp. 9-
29 to -33; 9-36 to -44); Cultural Resources and Native American Concerns (Final Recirculated
EIR/EIS, pp. 9-44 to -45); Parks Trails and Recreation (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, pp. 9-45 to -
48); Air Quality (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 9-48); Noise (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, pp. 9-
48 to -49); Visual/Scenic Resources (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 9-49); Utilities/Public
Services and Facilities (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, pp. 9-49 to -50); Socioeconomic Resources:
Population, Housing, and Employment (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, pp. 9-50 to -51.);
Environmental Justice and Children (Final Recirculated EIRJEIS, pp. 9-51 to -52); and Growth -
Inducing Impacts (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 9-52).
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
identified in an EIR if the alternative (1) does not substantially reduce significant environmental
49
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 Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. I-6.)
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 Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 1-6.)
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 Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 1-6.)
4. Provide for permanent open space, community edges and recreational
opportunities, which contribute to maintaining the community character of
the Coachella Valley. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 1-6.)
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
Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 2-2.) The Plan was developed in consultation with SAC using
best available science. (Final Recirculated ERVEIS, p. 2-3.)
The Preferred Alternative will conserve 27 species ("Covered Species") and 27
natural communities. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, pp. 2-4 through 2-6.) The Reserve
System proposed by the Preferred Alternative contains 21 Conservation Areas totaling
723,480 acres of land, and provides Core Habitat and Other Conserved Habitat for the
proposed Covered Species. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 2-8.) Based upon the analysis
in the Final Recirculated EIR, and in particular the comparison of the impacts of the
various alternatives analyzed, the Preferred Alternative is determined to be the
environmental superior alternative. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, Table E-1.)
In addition to the Preferred Alternative, several additional alternatives were
considered. These are the Public Lands Alternative, the Core Habitat with Ecological
Processes Alternative, the Enhanced Conservation Alternative and the No Action/No
W
Project Alternative. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, pp. 2-51 through 2-64.) These
alternatives are discussed below. One other alternative considered would have fully
protected the Habitat of the Covered Species in the Plan Area. (Final Recirculated
EIR/EIS, p. 2-64.) Because all Habitat would have been conserved under this alternative,
no Take coverage would have been required, eliminating the need for a habitat
conservation plan. (Ibid.) This alternative could not meet Plan objectives, was determined
to be infeasible and did not meet the purposes and needs of the USFWS. (Ibid.) Thus,
that alternative was initially considered but eliminated from further review. (Ibid.)
B. 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 Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 2-51.)
Level 1 lands are lands consisting of state and federal Wilderness Areas.
(MSHCP, pp. 2-7.) Level 2 lands contain some Existing Uses, but the
overall management objective is maintenance of natural values. (Ibid.)
Level 3 lands are designated for multiple use while providing significant
Conservation value. (MSHCP, p. 2-8.)
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 Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 2-51.) The local jurisdictions would
contribute to the management of the existing Conservation Areas as
mitigation for the Habitat loss allowed under the Plan. (Final Recirculated
EIR/EIS, p. 2-51.) In total, this alternative would result in the
Conservation of 19.5% less acreage than under the Preferred Alternative.
(Final EIR/EIS, p. 4.8-25.)
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 Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 2-51 through 2-54.)
The only significant reserve areas on the valley floor would be the three
existing Coachella Valley fringe -toed lizard preserves and Dos Palmas
ACEC. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 2-51.) Within mountainous areas,
some conserved land would be well preserved, but habitat fragmentation is
a problem in other areas where considerable private lands still exist.
01
(Ibid.) 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.
(MSHCP, p. 3-13.) As a result, sand transport, watershed, and other
ecological processes would not be adequately protected; Biological
Corridors would not be conserved; and Core Habitat 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
Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.6-7.) 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
remain unresolved under this alternative mean that the potential for
adverse impacts to existing and planned groundwater recharge facilities
could be significant. (Ibid.)
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.
52
C. 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 Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.8-25.) 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 Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 2-54.) 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. (Nd.)
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.
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 Recirculated EIR/EIS, pp. 2-9 and 2-57.) An
additional 47,000 acres of Complementary Conservation and Additional
Conservation Lands would be conserved through the Preferred
Alternative. (Mid.) 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 1 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.
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.
611
D. 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 Recirculated EIR/EIS,
pp. 2-58 through 2-63.)
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. (MSHCP, pp. 3-14.) 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
alternative were biologically viable or Feasible to conserve. (MSHCP, p.
3-14.) 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. (Mid.) 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 Recirculated EIR/EIS, pp. 4.2-8 through
4.2-13.) 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
Recirculated EIR/EIS, pp. 4.3-10 through 4.3-15.)
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. (MSHCP,
p. 3-14.) It would also conflict with certain adopted local or regional flood
control plans or projects. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, pp. 4.6-8 through
4.6-9.)
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
54
adequately conserve all of the Covered Species. (MSHCP, p. 3-14.) 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.
E. No Action/No Project Alternative
Description
With the No Action/No Project Alternative, land use changes and policies
that are being contemplated to implement the MSHCP would not occur,
and no Permits would be issued. Individual project proponents would
continue to obtain their own Take Authorizations or avoid Take. (Final
Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 2-63.)
2. Finding
This Alternative fails to meet all four basic Project objectives, would not
substantially reduce environmental impacts and would result in increased
impacts.
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. (MSHCP, pp. 3-14 through 3-15; Final Recirculated
EIR/EIS, p. 2-63.) Therefore, there would be no process in place to
provide Take Authorization for Covered Species and no Core Habitat to
protect. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, pp. 2-63 through 2-64.) 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
55
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 Recirculated
EIR/EIS, p. 2-63.) Private parties would also be required to mitigate
biological impacts on a project -by -project basis resulting in inconsistent
Conservation and management.
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. (MSHCP, p. 3-15; Final
Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 2-63.) 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. (MSHCP, p. 3-15.) 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 Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, and all other applicable documents in
the record, in evaluating the Project, that the Final Recirculated EIR/EIS is an accurate and
objective statement that complies with CEQA and reflects CVAG's independent judgment, and
that the Final Recirculated 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 Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, adopts the MSHCP, approves the IA, and
authorizes the Chairman of the Executive Committee to execute the IA.
FAA
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the CVAG Executive Committee that staff shall file
a Notice of Determination with the Riverside County Clerk of the Board of Supervisors within
five (5) working days of final Project approval.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this loth day of September, 2007.
AYES: ID
NOES: 0
ABSTAIN: a
Richard Kite, Chair
Coachella Valley Association of Governments
Imuth, Executive Director
Valley Association of Governments
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Toni Eggebraaten, CVAG Counsel