Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/3/2007 - STAFF REPORTS - 1.F.10/03/2007 16:53 FAX 949 752 0597 JDTP IRVINE U 002 Jackson I DeMarcol Tidus Petersen I Peckenpaugh A L A w C 0 R P 0 n A T 1 p N October 3, 2007 Direct Dial Email: Reply to: File No: VIA FACSIMILE City Council City of Palm Springs 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, California 92262 949.851.7409 mstaplesla jdtplaw.com Irvine Offic,a 57671442,16 A• Re: Agenda item No. IF, Certification of Final Recirculated UR and Approval of the Final Recirculated Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan, Final Recirculated Implementing Agreement and Selection of the Preferred Alternative Dear Honorable City Council Members: We represent Century Vintage Homes ("Century"). Century owns 2L 0 acres of land in the City of Palm Springs and 30 acres of land in unincorporated Riverside County. 111e Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan ("MSHCP") proposes to include 211 acres of Century's land within the MSHCP's proposed Santa Rosa & San Jacinto Mountains Conservation Area and the Whitewater Floodplain Conservation Area. On behalf of Century. we subxailted a detailed comment letter on the draft environmental impact report/environmental impact statement (" 61R/S") detailing the substantive and procedural deficiencies of the MSHCP and EIRJS. We also submitted supplemental coxnracnts dated September 10, 2007, to the Coachella Valley Association of Governments and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (copy enclosed). Century has also met with the City of Pahn Springs to discuss the adverse impacts to Century's land use despite the absence of sensitive habitat on The vast majority of Century's land, and potential measures to mitigate those impacts while better achieving the MCHSP's stated conservation goals. The legal and substantive deficiencies of the MSHCP and EIR/S have not been remedied. For the reasons discussed in our prior correspondence, we respectfully request that the City Council deny the F:IR/S and MSHCP, direct that the MSHCP and UPUS be revised, recirculated and reconsidered after correcting its internal inconsistencies, incorporating and evaluating information on the MSHCP's potential environmental impacts, and incorporating measures to mitigate such impacts. We request an opportunity to work cooperatively with the City to resolve Irvine Office Westlake Village Office 2030 Main Street, Suite 1200 2815 Townsgate Road, Suite 200 Irvine, California 92614 Westlake Village, Californla 91361 t949.752.8565 f949.752.0597 t$05.230.0023 f 805.230.0087 www.jdtplaw.com ro j 3`a� 10/03/2007 16:53 FAX 949 752 0597 JDTP IRVINE U 003 City Council October 3, 2007 Page 2 the issues with the MSHCP and Ellt/E1S to unsure their compliance with applicable laws and Fulfillment of the fundamental purpose ol'= EIR/S to inform the public and responsible officials of the environmonial consequences of their decisions before they arc made. Sincerely, i Michele A. Staples Enclosure 10/03/2007 16:53 FAX 949 752 0597 JDTP IRVINE Q 004 Jackson I DeMarcoI Tidus Petersen I Peckenpaugh A LAW CORPORATION September 10, 2007 VIA FACSINIME AND U.S. MAU, Ms. Katie Barrows Coachella Valley Association of Governments 73-710 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 200 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Mr. Jim Bartel Field Supervisor U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office 6010 Hidden VaUey Road Carlsbad, CA 92009 Direa Dial 949.851.7408 Email mstaples[gjdtplaw.com Reply io: Irvine Office File No. 57S7-04248 Re: Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Dear Ms. Barrows and Mr. Bartel: CVAG's responses to the comments we submitted on behalf of Century Vintage Homes fail to remedy the inconsistencies throughout the EIR/S and fail to make a reasoned analysis of the MSHCP's potential land use impacts. As a result, the EIR/S is legally inadequate under CEQA and NEPA and any decision to adopt the MSHCP based on the EIR/S is s ibj ect to being overturned. The following deficiencies are brought to your attention in an attempt to convince CVAG and tho U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to continue today's hearing as necessary for the affected public and decisionmakers to evaluate the proposed final EIR/S and MSHCP, and to allow CVAG sufficient time to revise, recirculate and reconsider the EMJS and the MSHCP alter correcting its internal inconsistencies, incorporating and evaluating information on the MSHCP's potential impacts to growth and development, and incorporating measures to mitigate such impacts. 1. Failure to Analvze and Mitisyate'NMSHCP's Sianiticant Land Use lmnacts. If successfully implemented, the MSHCP would conserve large tracts of uodr:veloped land currently designated for development. CVAG acknowledges in Response No. X-25 that if development cannot occur where it is currently proposed, or at levels currently permitted, it must occur "elsewhere"_ Irvine Office Westlake Village Office 2030 Main Street, Suite 120D 2815 Townsgate Road, Suite 200 �nnvw.jdtplaw.com Irvine, California 92611 Westlake Village, California 91361 t 949,752.8585 f 949.752.0597 t805-230.0023 f 805.230.0087 10/03/2007 16:53 M 949 752 0597 JDTP IRVINE 1�of) s Ms, Katie Barrows September 10, 2007 Page 2 However, the MPUS does not make any attempt to evaluate where such relocated growth may occur, or the impacts associated with such growth Instead, the responses dismiss the need for any such analysis as "speculative" and unsupported by any evidence submitted by Century. The responses also side-step the issue by stating that the MSHCP does not change any of the adopted land use planning documents and The cities and County retain land use authority (see Response Nos. 17, 19, 23, 26; see also the discussion of the impact areas not addressed in the MR/S at ETR/S pp. 4.1-1-28; and attached Regional Housing Need Allocation Plan). An EIR/S must evaluate the potential impacts of the proposed project assunung that the project is implemented as proposed. Here, CVAG has proposed a habitat conservation plan with "hard line" Conservation Areas clearly delineated (see Response Nos. X-5, X-6). If successfwly implemented, the plan would acquire and manage those areas for habitat conservation purposes and prevent development in or near those areas that generate noise, light, non-native plants, people, dogs, cats, etc. (see Response No. X-5). The project proponents and pemiittees are the land use and municipal service agencies charged with, among other things, providing adequate homes to meet regional housing needs, and providing regional infrastructure to serve existing and new development. Before the proposed "hard line" habitat conservation plan is adopted, it is necessary for the decisiontual;crs to evaluate where the previously -projected growth and development may be relocated and how it will accommodated if it is displaced from the Conservation Areas as proposed, the associated environmental impacts, and available mitigation measures associated with the proposed changes. Because the CVMSHCP follows the recently -adopted Western Riverside County multiple species habitat conservation plan, the EIR/S must analyze the cumulative effect of the conservation plans on region -wide growth and development. Simply put, land within the delineated Conservation Areas is subject to the MSHCP's property acquisition process and land outside of the Conservation Areas is not. Accordingly, if the proposed MS) iCP is successfully implemented, the growth and development currently designated on land within the Conservation Areas would shift to areas of Coachella Valley that are outside of the proposed Conservation Areas, or to other regions. The BIR/S must be revised to consider the foreseeable signifwant environmental impacts that may resultfrom the changed development patterns that will result the tIdSHCP is successfully implemented, including, for example, changes in infrastructure ,needed to serve more concentrated growth areas than currently contemplated in the general plans of participating cities, and the increased growth in adjacent regions if development is not concentrated elsewhere in the.MSAYCPplan area. Such a good faith, reasoned analysis is necessary to evaluate and mitigate the impacts associated with the regional change in development and housing patterns that The MS14 CP proposes, including whether and how the Coachella Valley will meet its regional housing needs projections, infrastructure planning, water supply distribution, and other municipal services. 10/03/2007 16:54 FAX 949 752 0597 .1ATP IRVINE Z 006 Ms. Katie Barrows September 10, 2007 Page 3 2. Internal Inconsistencies. Though there is no analysis of the environmental impacts associated with reaIIocatmg growth and development, there are numerous statistics and charts detailing the acreage of developable lands within and outside of the proposed Conservation Area by their general plan land use designations. The Responses to Comments perpetuate, and do not correct, the inconsistencies in the statistics throughout the EIR/S that we brought to CVAG's attention. As one of many examples, the EIR/S is unclear as to how much private acreage is included within the Conservation Area. This information is important to evaluate the socio-economic impacts of the MSHCP, especially because the. EIR/S states that there are fewer developable acres outside of the Conservation Area than within it: 155,431 total developable acres outside of The Conservation Area (not targeted for acquisition), compared with 200,536 developable acres within the Conservation Area (targeted for acquisition) (EIR/S p. 4.8-7). Likewise, in the Palm Springs area, the MR/S states that there are more developable acres within tlxe Conservation Area than outside: 5,483.06 developable acres within the Conservation Area compared with 4,037.03 acres outside the Conservation Area, Hardest hit is the residential .acreage in Palm Springs: 5,374.27 developable residential acres inside of the Conservation fuea, compared with only 1,730.05 residential acres outside of the Censervation Area: fully 3/ of the developable residential acreage in Palm Springs is within the proposed Conservation Area (EIR/S p. 4.8-16), Throughout the MSHCP plan area, more than half of all developable residential acreage is included within the Conservation Area: 161,490.08 acres of developably residential land is within the Conservation Area, and 111,304.56 acres of developable residential land is outside (EIR/S p. 4.8-20, 4.8-22). To the contrary, Response No, X-21 states, "The statement that there is more developable land inside the Conservation Areas than outside is incorrect.... For each jurisdiction, more developable land is located outside the conservation area than within it." As a result of CVAG's error in this regard, Century's comment regarding the MSFdCP's significant land use impacts has not been evaluated or responded to, and the MS'HCP's land use impacts remain unmitigated Such internal inconsistencies and lack of clarity within the EMIS leave the public and the decisionmakers without substantial evidence to support approval of the MSHCP (Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 CalAth 412, 439). 3. Deletion of Take Authorization for Oneohm Activities, Response Nos. X-6 and X-9 do not address Century's comment that the MSl ICP will expose landowners to risk of illegal take by establishing Conservation Areas adjacent to private property and attracting listed species to those Conservation Areas, without providing ibr any containxueat ofthe listed species or any take authorization for adjacent landowners. CVAG must explain why the recirculated EIR/S withdrew the take authorization previously extended to protect landowners (`willing sellers") withixx Conservation Areas and landowners adjacent to 10/0.0/2007 16:54 FAX 949 752 0597 3DTP IRVINE 2007 Ms. Katie Barrows September 10, 2007 Page $ Conservation Areas from civil and criminal liability as the result of implementing the MSHCP, and modify the project as necessary to prevent such significant land use impacts. d„ Procedural deficiencies. The public was not provided an adequate opportunity to review the proposed final EIR/S and MSHCP sufficiently in advance of CVAG'S hearing to certify the EIR/S and approve the MSHCP. The notice of the documents' availability was not provided until the end of the day on Friday. Due to a technical problem, the comments were not accessible on the CVAG web site and there was no way correlate the responses with the comments referenced in the responses. CVAG's project schedule originally anticipated that the responses to public comments would be completed by the beginning of July 2007, several weeks before CVAG was originally scheduled to approve the final EM./S and MSHCP at the end of July 2007. Thus, the public expected to have about one month to review and evaluate the proposed final EMIS and ,N4SHCP. However, the affected public has had less than one business day to attempt to access and review the multiple volumes of documents that CVAG is planning to approve. The hurried and haphazard process by which CVAG is processing the MSHCP is another example of b 'eaueratic momentum hijacking the deliberative process by which governmental decisions are required to be analyzed under the relevant environmental laws. In addition to discussing the broader substantive and procedural deficiencies of the MSHCP and EIR/S, Century has met with CVAG staff to discuss the 211 acres of Centwry's property included within the MSHCP's proposed Santa Rosa & San Jacinto Mountains Conservation Area and the Whitewater Floodplain Conservation Area, the adverse impacts to Century's land use despite the absence of sensitive habitat on the vast majority of Century's land, and potential measures to mitigate those impacts while better achieving the MCHSP's stated conservation goals. For the record, enclosed is a list of the APNs comprising the Century Vintage Ilomas' land for your consideration. We request that CVAG and the Service continue the hearing as necessary far the affected public and decisionmakers to evaluate the proposed final EIR/S and MSHCP, and to allow CVAG sufficient time to revise, recirculate and reconsider the EIR/S and the MSHCP after correcting its internal inconsistencies, incorporating and evaluating information on the MSHCP's potential impacts to growth and development, and incorporating measures to mitigate such impacts. The 10/03/2nn7 16:54 FAX 949 732 0597 JDTF IRVINE Z 008 Ms. Katie Barrows September 10, 2007 Page S failure to do se will defeat the fundamenW purpose of an EIRJS to inform The public and responsible officials of the environmezltal consequences of their decisions &c fore they are made. Sincerely, Michele A. Staples MAS/ik Enclosures 731319.1 ranaaonm Final Regional Housing Need Allocation Plan - Planning Period (January 1, 2006 - June 90, 2014) for Jurlsdlalicns within the Six -County SCAG Region (approved by the SCAG Regional Council on July 12, 2007) % %above idumher of Number of %very low %low modcrale moderate very low Numb or of love moderate income income incoma Income income income hrsyma 130uMy ally households households households hcvseliolds %loiaf hauseholds households housahekfs r Drange San clemenio city 21.6% 17.5% 19.9% 40.9% t00% 126 193 115 1 ]range San Juan Capls lmno oily 21.6% 173% 19.6% 41.07. too % 229 188 210 I ]range Santa Ma city 20.5% Min. 19.6Y 43.11% t00% 694 574 665 Orange Seel Beach dly 19.3% 17.5% 21.1% 42.1% i0IN. 11 10 12 Orange Slanlvn city i9.911. 17.1% 19.7% 43,4 % 100% 1011 93 107 Orange Tuslin city 2L5% 172% A.M. 41.6% 1DD% 512 410 468 Grano Wile Park city 27.3% 16.2% 1B.2Y 36.4% 100% 3 2 2 Orange WesUnlnmS Ufty 20.5%. 17.1% 19.9% 42.5% i0D% 3o 25 29 Qranga Yurha Hadacity 22.6% 18.21/6 20.2% 39.0% 100Y. 497 371 412 Oranga Uniecaporalod 22.3% 18.1% 20.0y. MAY. MY. 1.777 1,445 1,597 Riverside Bannlrg ally 22.7% 16.1% 18fi% 42,8% 106% 873 618 705 Rlversids BeaaMMI Illy 22.41Y. 16.2% 1B.7ny. 42.7% f00% 1,586 1,140 1.320 Riverside Blythe city 22,7% 16.51 IBM. 423% 100% 177 128 144 Riverside calimnsa oily 23.2% 16.2gS r9.4°% 42.27 100% 52B 367 41B Riverside Canyon Lake city 25.11% 17.0% I9.0% 39.095 100% 25 17 19 Riverside Cathedral coy 23 5% 16.3% 18.3% 42.0% f00% 782 542 605 Riverside Coachella oily 22.5% 15.0% 18.50/6 43.5'1. 1D0% 1,288 893 1,059 Riverside Owna city 24M i6.9% 18.5% 39.6Y 100Y 819 560 611 Riverside Desert Hol Sptl ngs city 21.841. 15.8% 18.9% 43.51Y. 100% 2,iB1 1,570 1,071 Alverside He Mal city 22.i% 15AY 18.5% 43.6% 1W% 2,404 1,781 2,08D Fllverside Indian Wei Is oily 24.6% 17.41 19.4% K.4% 109% fit 42 47 Rhnerslde lnd!o oily 23.1% 16.1% 1 B d I% 42.7% l0D% 955 667 752 Riversida La 4ulntacily, 24,64Y. 16.7% 0.4% 40.2% l00% 1,065 724 796 111voislda Lake Elsinore city 23.5% 16.5% 1B.655 41.41/6 1UOY 1,311 S21: 1,041 Wye+side Moreno valley city 24.2% 10.6% tB2'1 41.0% 100% 1,505 1,239 i,362 Riverswe Munienacity 24.970 :£.M. 115.6:6 20 E"6 1097� . 5F6 f n07 1.171 Riverside Noma city 24.9% i7.17 18,6% 39.4% t00% 236 162 177 Riverside Palm DeselI city 24.1% 16.SY 15.5% 49.90/6 tog% 1,105 759 847 Riverside Palm Springs city 23.1% 16.2% 18,6% 42.1% 100% 523 366 421 Mmmlde Perils city 23.2% i6.1% 11B.O% 42.7% 100Y 967 669 740 Riverside Rancho Mirage USly 24.35. i6.8% 1S.8% 40.17. 1001Y. 78f 539 603 Nole: There 19 a ono unli rounding difference in same local lies bslveeen the total housing need and the sum of Iha 4lrwL?me groups, In such caws, communities may choose nldch of I1re income ua;afrwles It will adjusl by one unit to malnialncoaslslency edrh Ike approved total housing need. M:IJ chnsonlflbf N AIR HNAFinal.As Number❑f above moderate Income households 239 436 1,461 24 Z30 991 4 63 796 3, I59 i,645 3,019 329 957 39 1.397 2,493 1,317 4,322 4,898 94 1,7B9 IJ41 2,313 3.ona $d97 374 1,875 951 1,77E 1,285 Tolal 564 1,062 3,393 57 5V 2,380 ff 147 2,039 7,978 3,841 7,071 778 2,271 i4f 3,329 5,733 3,3D3 9,923 41,243 244 4,143 4.20 5,590 7,474 6 303 949 4,556 2,261 4,193 3,208 Final 07112I29137 Page 5 10/03/2007 16:55 FAX 949 752 0597 JDTP IRVINE Zoio CENTURY VINTAGE HOMES PROPERTIES Assessor Parcel Number 669-230.005 669-230-010 669-230-011 669-290-007 669-290-003 669-290-009 669-290-010 669-290-012 669-310-002 669-310-003 669-320-004 669-320-005 669-320-007 669-372-001 669-372-002 5767-447.46\735443.1 /;- pALMSp iZ c Q FO� CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE- October 3, 2007 PUBLIC HEARING SUBJECT. CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL RECIRCULATED EIR AND APPROVAL OF THE FINAL RECIRCULATED COACHELLA VALLEY MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN / NATURAL COMMUNITY CONSERVATION PLAN, FINAL RECIRCULATED IMPLEMENTING AGREEMENT AND SELECTION OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE FROM: David H. Ready, City Manager BY: Craig A. Ewing, AICP, Director of Planning Services SUMMARY The Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) has approved a revised and recirculated Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). The MSHCP is a long- range planning document for the Coachella Valley, and its implementation will ultimately conserve over 240,000 acres of open space and protect 27 plant and animal species. The City of Palm Springs is one of the permittees under the proposed Plan and must certify the associated EIR and approve the draft Plan before it can be considered adopted. Final action must occur by all permifkees no later than October 31, 2007. A public hearing is required. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Open the public hearing and receive public testimony; 2. Adopt Resolution No. , "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS MAKING RESPONSIBLE AGENCY FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FOR THE MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN, APPROVING THE COACHELLA VALLEY MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN / NATURAL COMMUNITY CONSERVATION PLAN AND IMPLEMENTING AGREEMENT, AND ADOPTING THE ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT." ITEM NO. \�_ City Council Staff Report October 3, 2007 -- Page 2 of 5 Certification of Coachella Valley Multi -species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) 3. Adopt Resolution No. , A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS TO ESTABLISH PROCEDURES AND REQUIREMENTS FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COACHELLA VALLEY MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN" STAFF ANALYSIS' The Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan (MSHCP) has been underway for more than 12 years. Following the decision by Desert Hot Springs in June 2006 not to participate in the MSHCP, the Plan was revised and recirculated. The Recirculated MSHCP and associated documents were released for public review and comment on March 29, 2007 for a 60-day comment period which closed on May 30, 2007. Letters were sent to all owners of record with lands in the proposed Conservation Areas, CVAG staff responded to more than 200 calls from landowners. CVAG is the lead agency for the Recirculated Draft EIR, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is the lead agency for the Supplemental Final EIS. During the comment period, three public forums were held. A total of 67 individual comment letters were received. Following the close of the comment period, CVAG, its consultants and attorneys, and USFWS (as lead agency for the EIS) prepared written responses to all the written comments. The Final Recirculated EIR includes responses to all written comments received from agencies, private organizations, and the public during the public comment period. In addition, changes to the Final Recirculated MSHCP, Final Recirculated Implementing Agreement, and Final Recirculated EIR/Supplemental Final EIS have been made as appropriate in response to the comments received. The changes are not significant. This fulfills the intent of CEQA and NEPA to provide decision makers and the public a full analysis of the potential impacts of the MSHCP and to provide the public with an opportunity to provide additional information to decision -makers regarding the potential effects of the MSHCP. The Final Recirculated MSHCP documents were delivered to CVAG members and Permittees between August 31 and September 5, 2007, including printed and CD copies of the documents. Every agency, private organization and member of the public who submitted a comment during the public review and comment period was notified of the availability of the Final Recirculated EIR which includes the response to comments and of the September 10, 2007 special joint meeting and Public Hearing of the Executive Committee, Coachella Valley Conservation Commission, Energy and Environmental Resources Committee, and Technical Advisory Committee. Post cards were sent to all property owners of record in the Conservation Areas notifying them of the September 10, 2007 public hearing. All MSHCP documents are available on the website www.cvmshco.oro. 000002 City Council Staff Report October 3, 2007 -- Page 3 of 5 Certification of Coachella Valley Multi -species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) The MSHCP has been reviewed by attorneys from Best, Best & Krieger (BB&K), legal counsel to CVAG for the MSHCP project. They reviewed the Recirculated Draft EIR/Supplemental Final EIS before the public comment period, and assisted in preparing the responses to comments and the changes to the EIR/EIS resulting in the Final Recirculated EIR/Supplemental Final EIS that is before you. BB&K attorneys have also prepared CEQA findings, which summarize the EIR analysis of the project's impacts and the project design features that avoid significant adverse effects. At the September 10, 2007 special joint meeting and public hearing, the CVAG Executive Committee approved the MSHCP and certified the Final Recirculated EIR on a vote of 10-0 with the City of Desert Hot Springs and Cabazon Band of Mission Indians abstaining. The findings adopted by the CVAG Executive Committee conclude that the Final Recirculated EIR is legally adequate and that the MSHCP will not result in significant adverse impacts on the environment. Summary and Benefits of the MSHCP The Final Recirculated MSHCP excludes the City of Desert Hot Springs as a Permittee and includes coverage for the proposed Morongo Wash flood control facility. The MSHCP will ultimately conserve over 240,000 acres of open space and protect 27 plant and animal species. Some of the benefits of the MSHCP are outlined below. • Assures critical freeway and freeway interchange projects can be built without delays resulting from endangered species conflicts ■ Offers certainty for the business community ultimately making the Coachella Valley a more attractive place for businesses to relocate or expand • Preserves the Coachella Valley's native desert wildlife and creates a magnificent system of open space parks, trails and reserves • Safeguards significant habitat linkages and wildlife corridors that enable animals to move safely from one habitat area to another • By providing comprehensive compliance with federal and state endangered species laws, the Plan not only safeguards the desert's natural heritage for future generations, it benefits quality of life in the Coachella Valley. Ramifications of the MSHCP not being Approved Approval of the MSHCP is required in order to maintain the Coachella Valley fringe -toed lizard permit, according to the MOU with the California Department of Fish and Game considered at the September 10, 2007 meeting. Further, if the Plan is not approved by all the Permittees, there will be no Incidental Take Permit for the eleven currently listed species that occur in Coachella Valley and no Incidental Take Permits for the currently non -listed Covered Species should they become listed. The consequences of that are as follows: 000603 City Council Staff Report October 3, 2007 -- Page 4 of 5 Certification of Coachella Valley Multi -species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) • Loss of Coachella Valley Fringe -toed Lizard Permit. The MOU extending the Coachella Valley fringe -toed lizard (CVFTL) permit until March 15, 2008 requires approval of the MSHCP by all Permittees by October 31, 2007. Without a State of California permit, USFWS is likely to initiate suspension or revocation of the federal Incidental Take Permit because the MSHCP is intended to redress deficiencies in the existing CVFTL HCP identified by USFWS. Without the MSHCP, and the loss of the CVFTL permit, development that would impact this species would no longer be permitted. This would have an enormous impact on development throughout much of the Coachella Valley. • No coverage for Transportation Projects not currently covered by the 1-10 Mitigation Bank. If the MSHCP is not approved, there would be no Incidental Take Permit for the TPPS projects or for Caltrans' improvements. Each such project would need to seek an Incidental Take Permit on a project -by -project basis from the Wildlife Agencies. While five 1-10 freeway interchanges and associated arterials are being addressed though the 1-10 Mitigation Bank on a parallel track to the MSHCP with the Wildlife Agencies, there are likely to be delays with future projects occasioned by the lack of an MSHCP. ■ Risk of New Species being listed as Threatened or Endangered. If a species not currently listed were to become listed (such as Palm Springs pocket mouse), all development in that species' habitat would be prohibited under the Endangered Species Act without an Incidental Take Permit. • No Simplification of Compliance with the State and Federal Endangered Species Acts. Even projects that do not impact a threatened or endangered species must still address the impacts of the project on other wildlife species. This may require preparation of an EIR, surveys to determine if sensitive species are present, and mitigation measures, which may have to be individually negotiated with USFWS and CDFG. Such individual project mitigation can be quite costly and can cause significant delays in projects. Plan Schedule: Based on the actions of the California Department of Fish and Game, the following schedule is mandated for the MSHCP: • Consideration by Cities, County and other Permittees - Before October 31, 2007 • Issuance of state and federal permits - Before March 15, 2008 000004 City Council Staff Report October 3, 2007 -- Page 5 of 5 Certification of Coachella Valley Multi -species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) FISCAL IMPACT: Implementation of the MSHCP is expected to cost $665,123,000 (2008 dollars) over the 75 year period of the permits. Implementation of the MSHCP is designed to be self - funding and no assessments are required of the Permittees. The MSHCP is to be funded from the Development Mitigation Fee, tipping fees and infrastructure mitigation payments from CVAG, Coachella Valley Water District, Caltrans, and Imperial Irrigation District. CVAG's contribution is $30 million in Measure A funds to mitigate all Transportation Project Prioritization Study (TPPS) projects. The proposed Development Mitigation Fee would be $5,730 per acre, with a per unit fee for residential development. The residential fee per unit for a density of 0-8 units per acre would be $1,284. 4Ig . wing, P, Dir of PlannhA Services David H. Ready, ger Tom Wilson, i Assistant City Manager, Dev't Svcs Attachments: 1. Draft Resolution —Responsible Agency Findings on the MSHCP 2. Draft Resolution — Plan Implementation Resolution 000005 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS MAKING RESPONSIBLE AGENCY FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FOR THE MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN/NATURAL COMMUNITY CONSERVATION PLAN, APPROVING THE COACHELLA VALLEY MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN/NATURAL COMMUNITY CONSERVATION PLAN AND IMPLEMENTING AGREEMENT, AND ADOPTING ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT WHEREAS, the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (the "MSHCP" or "Project") is a regional, comprehensive, multi jurisdictional habitat conservation plan focusing on the conservation of both sensitive species and their associated habitats in order to address biological and ecological diversity and conservation needs in the Coachella Valley; sets aside significant areas of undisturbed land for the conservation of sensitive habitat; maintains opportunities for recreation; preserves open space: and maintains a strong and sustainable environment for economic Development in the region; and WHEREAS, the MSHCP establishes a framework for compliance with State and Federal Endangered Species regulations while accommodating future growth in the MSHCP Plan Area, including issuance of "Take" Permits for certain species pursuant to Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Endangered Species Act (`ESA") and Section 2800, et seq. of the California Fish and Game Code (otherwise known as the "Natural Community Conservation Planning Act" or "NCCP Act of 2001"); and WHEREAS, the Coachella Valley Association of Governments ("CVAG") is the lead agency pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Public Res. Code, § 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR § 15000 et seq.); and WHEREAS, a joint 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 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 Palm Springs ("City") is a responsible agency for the RVPUBTAVILAW38340 1 -1- 000006 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 mecting on , 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 ETR/ETS 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 WHEREAS, the doctuments and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings/administrative record for the City's approval of the Project are located at . and the custodian of these records is the of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS AS FOLLOWS: A. The Final Recirculated EIR/ETS prepared f'or the MSHCP is hereby received by the City Council in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A. and incorporated herein by this reference. B. The City Council hereby finds and determines that the Final Recirculated EMJEIS has been completed in compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines and, as the decision -making body for the City of Palm Springs, the City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final Recirculated Elk/EIS and related documents before it and all of the environmental effects of the MSHCP, and finds that the Final Recirculated ETR/ETS reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City. RVPUa\FAVILA\738340.1 -I)- 000 0" 1 C. The City Council concurs with the environmental findings in CVAG Resolution No. 07-009 and adopts these findings, attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by this reference. 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 this day of 2007. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Ron Oden, Mayor City 01'Palm Spring$ ATTEST: James Thompson, City Clerk City of Palm Springs APPROVED AS TO FORM: Douglas Holland, City Attorney RV?UB\FAV ILA\738340 1 -J- 000068 I, James Thompson, City Clerk of the City of Palm Springs do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting thereof, held on the _ day of 2007, and that the foregoing is a Full, true and correct copy of said Resolution. James Thompson, City Clerk UPUMPAVILAMR3401 -4- 000009 CVAG ATTACHMENT 1 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 I 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 Gtumery 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 Pemtittee), 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 1 OOOOIL 0 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 Envirommental 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 State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15082(a) and 15373, and was circulated for a period of 30 days, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15082(b) and 15103; and WHEREAS, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15082, the Lead Agencies solicited continents from potential responsible agencies, including details about the scope and content of the environmental information related to the responsible agency's area of statutory responsibility, as well as the significant environmental issues, reasonable alternatives and mitigation measures that the responsible agency would need to have analyzed in the Draft EIR/EIS; and WHEREAS, approximately 29 written comments were received by the Lead Agencies in response to the NOP; and WHEREAS, the City of Desert Hot Springs elected to withdraw its Incidental Take Permit application and to be excluded froin 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 Envirorunental 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 EIWRIS; and 000011 WHEREAS, CVAG, the lead agency under CFQA, 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 there 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 EIR/EIS, 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 21092.3, 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 Sint; 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 000012 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 tmlisted 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 arc 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 MSIICP 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- 4 000013 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. (MSIICP, Table 4-1.) F. The MSHCP will serve as a Habitat Conservation Plan ("HCP") pursuant to Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA, as well as an NCCP pursuant to the NCCP Act of 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 MSIICP 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 platming 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. (Ibid.) Based upon these provisions, the MSHCP will not adversely affect new trail and public access facilities, which can be conditioned as needed to effectively mitigate potential impacts to visual resources in these areas. (Ibid.) Accordingly, impacts on aesthetics are less than significant. 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 EIRJEIS, p. 5-85.) However, approval for the construction of new perimeter trails and the 5 00d071� 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/E1S, pp. 2-47 through 2-50.) The proposed MSHCP guidelines direct future trail alignments to existing dirt roads wherever possible. (Final Recirculated EfRiEIS, 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 scetric resources. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, 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. (Ibid.) Additionally, the MSHCP will not impact any lands under Williamson Act contracts nor will it preclude entering into such contracts in the future on lands that are currently in active agriculture, whether such lands are located within or outside of a Conservation Area. (Final 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. 6 000015 C. Air Quality The MSHCP Plan Area is located within the Salton Sea Air Basin. (Final Recirculated EIM/EIS, p. 4.9-12.) In and of itself, the MSHCP does not authorize future Development. (Final Recirculated EIRIEIS, p. 4.9-13.) However, Plan implementation may cause future Development to be displaced to other areas in the Coachella Valley ralbei than not occurring at all. (Final Recirculated EIRIE1S, p. 49-12.) 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. (Ibidj 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 tales 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 (Xy(orhiza 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 EIRJEIS, p. 4.7-11.) Approximately 6,328 acres (10%) of all Habitat and 30% of non-federal lands will be subject to Habitat loss tinder 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 milikely 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. (MSIICP, 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 IIills Palms Conservation Area, 1,594 7 .. 000016 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 S6% 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 ttnfragmented Habitat, maintain Essential Ecological Processes to sustain the Habitat, and protect Biological Corridors and Linkages, as appropriate. 2. impacts to the Coachella Valley millcvetch — Astragalas lentiginosus var. coachellae. Individuals occurring outside of the MSHCP Conservation Area will be subject to IIabitat loss. (Final Recirculated EIRJEIS, p. 4.7-5.) Approximately 15,400 acres (42%) of all IIabitat and 51% of the non -Federal lands will be subject to Habitat loss under the MSHCP. (Ibid.) There will be approximately 928 acres (6%) of Core Habitat subject to IIabitat loss under the MSHCP. (Ibid.) Features of the MSHCP that will reduce Project Impacts. Within the Plan Area, the MSHCP will conserve all remaining populations of this species where Essential Ecological Processes are intact. (Ibid.) Approximately 2,385 acres of Core IIabitat 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, Whilewater Canyon, Highway 111/1-10, Upper lVission CreeldBig 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°ib of the Core Habitat. (MSIICP, 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 8 000017 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 MSIICP. (Final Recirculated EIRJEIS, p. 4.7-7.) There will be approximately 104 acres (5%) of Core IIabitat subject to Habitat loss under the Plan. (Final Recirculated EIRJEIS, 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 IIabitat 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 Ion, --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 occmrences 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 MSIICP will be less than significant and the benefits conferred by the Plan will protect adequate unfragmented Habitat, maintain Essential Ecological Processes to sustain the IIabitat, and protect Biological Corridors and Linkages, as appropriate. 9 00001$ 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/ IS, p. 4.7-13.) Approximately 6,933 acres (9%) of all IIabitat and 28% of non- federal lands will be subject to Habitat loss trader 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 3,938 acres of Other Conserved IIabitat 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 IIabitat). (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' IIabitat, such as 014 V 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 E1R/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 1vISHCP. (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 IIabitat for linanthus in the Upper Mission 10 000019 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 IIabitat 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 linauthus be maintained. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.7-9.) The Plan Rill also control and manage activities that degrade linarrthus 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. (Ibid.) 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 mucb 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 IIabitat, and protect Biological Corridors and Linkages, as appropriate. 6. Impacts to the Coachella Valley giant sand -treader cricket (MMacrobaenetes valguin). Individuals occurring outside the Conservation Areas will be subject to Take Authorization, including those occurring on the Big Dune. (Final Recirculated EII:/EIS, 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 IIabitat 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 enviromnental 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 00002O implements biological monitoring and Adaptive Management to identify threats and to ensure Conservation of this species. (Ibid..) All of these actions will conserve this species in perpetuity. (Ibid) Conservation under the Plan includes 1,243 acres of Core IIabitat 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 IIill Conservation Area, 754 acres of Other Conserved Habitat in the East Indio IIills Conservation Area, and 112 acres of Other Conserved Habitat in the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains Conservation Area. (MSIICP, 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 ]till 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 IIabitat, and protect Biological Corridors and Linkages, as appropriate. 7. Impacts to the Coachella Valley Jerusalem cricket (Stenopelrnatus cahuilaensis). Individuals occurring outside the Conservation Areas will be subject to Take, including those occurring on the Big Dune. (Final Recirculated EMMIS, p_ 4.7-17.) Approximately 9,989 acres (44%) of all Habitat and 49% of non -Federal lands grill be subject to Take Authorization under the MSIICP. (Ibid.) Nearly all (96%) of the Take will be outside the Conservation Areas, where the IIabitat 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 tinder the Plan. (Ibid.) Features of the MSHCP that will reduce Project Impacts. The MSHCP protects a contiguous IIabitat 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 enviromnental conditions within which the species occurs. (MSIICP, Table 9.11.) The MSIICP also ensures Conservation of Essential Ecological Processes including sand source/transport systems; maintains Biological Corridors and Linkages to allow cormectivity and shifts in 12 000021 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 CrecldWindy Point Conservation Area, and a total of 10,509 acres of Other Conserved Habitat in eleven Conservation Areas. (MSIICP, Table 9-11.) The total of IIabitat 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 (Cjprinodoiz 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 IIabitat 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 MSIICP 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 PLR/LIS, 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 000022 9. Impacts to the arroyo toad (Bi fo californicus). Individuals occurring outside the Conservation Areas will be subject to Take, including those occurring in the Bormie Bell area. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.7-23.) Approximately 88 acres (4%) of all Arroyo toad Habitat and 1 I % of non - Federal lands will be subject to Take Authorization under Are 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. (Tinal 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/Bi-, 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 MSI•ICP 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 agassizii). Individuals occurring outside the Conservation Areas will be subject to Take, including those occurring east of IIwy 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 E112/L1S, 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 000023 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. (MSIICP, 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. (Ibid.) 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 IIabitat for this species, such as OHV activity and other activities that can kill individuals or damage their Habitat. (MSIICP, 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 LIR/LIS, 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 MSIICP. (Ibid.) In addition, Section 4.4 of the MSIICP (Required Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures) provides additional Conservation protection. That provision requires that, under most circumstances, the Perrniltees 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 (" OB:M") activities in the Conservation Areas, personnel undertaking such activities are to be alert for the presence of desert tortoise. (MSIICP, 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 000024 suitable IIabitat and placed in the shade of a shrub. (Ibid.) To the maximtun extent Feasible, 0&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 EIIUEIS, 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 IIabitat subject to Take Authorization under the TvISHCP. (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. ((bid.) The MSIICP 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. (MSIICP, 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 IIabitat at Willow Hole Conservation Area, and 3,569 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 enviromnental 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 EIRIEIS, 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. (Filial Recirculated EIR/EIS, 16 000025 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 1 IR/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 (Pkrynosoma mcallir). Individuals occurring outside the Conservation Areas will be subject to Take, including those occurring on the Big Dime. (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 IIabitat 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 IIabitat subject to Take render 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. (MSIICP, 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 000026 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 homed 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 (Rallas longirostris yumaneusis). 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 IIabitat 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. (lbid.) 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 IIabitat. (Ibid.) Biological monitoring and Adaptive Management will be implemented to ensure Conservation, and Essential Ecological Processes will be protected, including the regimes necessary to maintain rail Habitat. (Ibid.) Finally, because this rail is a California Fully Protected Species, the required surveys will be conducted in accordance with law. (Ibid.) Based on the above, impacts to the Yuma clapper rail are less than significant and the benefits conferred by the Plan will protect adequate unfragmented Habitat, maintain Essential Ecological Processes to sustain the habitat, and protect Biological Corridors and Linkages, as appropriate. 14. Impacts to the California black rail (Laterallus jamaieensis coturniculus). Individuals occurring outside the Conservation Areas will be subject to Take, including any occurring in the Coachella Valley Stormwater Charnel. (Final Recirculated EIR/EJS, 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. (Ibid ) Features of the MSHCP that will reduce Project Impacts. This bird is found only in the Dos Palmas and Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel is 000027 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 ("CV WD") will establish 66 acres of permanent replacement rail IIabitat. Management and Monitoring activities would be implemented to ensure Conservation of this species, including control of activities that degrade IIabitat. (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 IIabitat 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 oval (Athene cimicularia). 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 EIR/EIS, p. 4.7-41.) However, it is estimated that 45% of known locations for burrowing owl will be subject to Tale 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. (MSIICP, Table 4-116.) The MSIICP will result in the Conservation of 41 of the 74 ]mown locations of burrowing owl, which include foraging areas. (Ibid.) These locations include areas in Snow Creek, Whitewater Floodplain Preserve, the Mission Creels area west of Highway 62, the Willow IIole-Edour Hill Preserve/ACEC area, the Thousand Palms Preserve, including the sand source area, and significant portions of the Indio Hills and Mecca IIills. (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 000028 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 rune 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 (8mpidonax trailhi ettimus). 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 MST-1CP 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. (MSIICP, 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 19,5N acres of modeled migratory Habitat together with Existing Conservation Land for a total of 40,946 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 Idabitat 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 EIR/E1S, pp. 4.7-53 to - 54.) CVWD will establish 44 acres of permanent Sonoran cottonwood - willow riparian forest in the Coachella Valley Stounwater Channel and Delta Conservation area as described in Section 4.3?0 of the MSHCP. (MSIICP, Table 4-116.) In addition, the Plan requires that, where disturbance of a given munber 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 000029 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 IIabitat. 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 IIills 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_ (MSI-ICP, 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 Southwestern willow flycatcher are less than significant and the benefits conferred by the Plan will protect adequate unfragrnented 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 E1R/EIS, p. 4.7-47.) Approximately 5,172 acres (75%) of all IIabitat 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 Tale under the Plan. (Ibid.) 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 IIabitat in Dos Palmas and 809 acres of occupied Habitat in the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel and Delta Conservation Areas. (Ibid.,- MSIICP, Table 9-22.) Implementation of the Plan will provide for the Conservation of the unprotected portions of crissal thrasher Habitat (Ibid.) 21 000030 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 Bills, Dos Palmas, and Coachella Valley Storm -water Charmel 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 unfraamented 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 (Toxostanma lecoirter). 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 EIR/EIS, 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 IvISIICP, 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 Nvill ensure Conservation of this species, including control of activities that degrade its IIabitat. (MSHCP, Table 4-116.) Biological Corridors and Linkages will be maintained for 22 000031 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, suu-veys will be conducted by an Acceptable Biologist on the constriction 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. (Ibid.) No construction will be permitted within the buffer during the breeding season of January 15 - June 15 or until the young have fledged. (Ibid.) 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 IIabitat (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 MSIICP 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. (MSIICP, Table 4-116.) The MSIICP 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 IIabitat together with Existing Conservation Land for a total of 40,510 acres of migratory IIabitat 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. 4.7-51.) 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 000032 Processes will also be protected, including hydrological regimes necessary to maintain riparian Habitat. (Ibid) In addition, the Required Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures of Section 4.4 of the MSHCP require that Covered Activities, including construction and O&M activities, in riparian IIabitat of the Cabazon, Stubbe and Cottonwood Canyons, Wlutewater 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 arc 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 EIR/EIS, 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 MSIICP will result in the Conservation of 13,194 acres of modeled IIabitat 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. (MSIICP, Table 9-25.) Management and monitoring activities will ensure Conservation of this species, including control of activities that degrade its IIabitat. (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 000033 Based on the above, the Plan will not have a significant impact on the gray vireo. 21. Impacts to the yellow warbler (Dendroica petechia brewsten). Individuals occurring outside the Conservation Areas will be subject to Take, including those in migratory IIabitat 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 EIRIEIS, p. 4.7-59.) Features of the MSHCP that will reduce Project Impacts. Ninety-four percent of the modeled yellow warbler breeding IIabitat 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 IIabitat together with Existing Conservation Land for a total of 2,563 acres of breeding Habitat conserved. (Ibid) The MSIICP 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 IIabitat via acquisition and management in several Conservation Areas and by establishment of permanent riparian IIabitat in the Whitewater Stars Channel and Delta Conservation Area. (Final Recirculated EIMIS, 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. (Ibid) Implementation of biological monitoring and Adaptive Management will also take place to ensure Conservation of the yellow warbler. (Ibid.) Essential Ecological Processes will also be protected, including hydrological regimes necessary to maintain riparian Habitat. In addition, the Required Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures of Section 4.4 of the MSHCP require that Covered Activities, including construction and 0&M activities, in riparian Habitat of the Cabazon, Stubbe and Cottonwood Canyons, Whitewater Canyon, Upper Mission Creek/Big Morongo Canyon, Thousand Palms, Indio IIills 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 25 QQoo3� 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 IIabitat, 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. (]bid.) 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 IIabitat is conserved under the Plan. (MSIICP, 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 oC 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 MSIdCP. (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 000GS5 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 Storrnwater Charnel 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. (Ibid.) 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 unfragrnented Habitat, maintain Essential Ecological Processes to sustain the IIabitat, 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 169 acres of all breeding Habitat and 15,371 acres of migratory IIabitat 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 IIabitat and 71 % of the modeled summer tanager migratory Habitat is conserved under the Plan, (MSHCP, Table 4-116.) The MSIICP will result in the Conservation of 1,037 acres of modeled breeding IIabitat together with Existing Conservation hand 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 40,946 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 EIRIEIS, 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, 27 OQQO where disturbance of a given number of acres of a riparian natural community is authorized, an equivalent ntunber of acres will be replaced to ensure that no net loss occurs. (Ibid.) Implementation of biological monitoring and Adaptive Management will also take place to ensure Conservation of the summer tanager. (Ibid.) Essential Ecological Processes will also be protected, including hydrological regimes necessary to maintain riparian Habitat. In addition, the Required Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures oC Section 4.4 of the MSHCP require that Covered Activities, including construction and O&M activities, in riparian IIabitat of the Cabazon, Stubbe and Cottonwood Canyons, Whitewater Canyon, Upper Mission Cieek/Big Morongo Canyon, Thousand Palms, Jndio Hills Palms, Joshua Tree National Park, Mecca Hills and Orocopia Mountains, Dos Palmas, Coachella Valley Stonnwater Channel and Delta, and Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains Conservation Areas, will be conducted to the maximum extent Feasible outside of the May I — 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 IIabitat 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 28 000037 .- of yellow bat IIabitat_ (Ibis.) 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 (Sperrnophilus 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 MSIICP. (Ibis.) There will be approximately 1,319 acres (6%) of Core Habitat subject to Take under the Plan. (Ibid.) Features of the MSIICP that will reduce Project Impacts. Ninety-four percent of the Core IIabitat 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 MSIICP 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 MSIICP has established Conservation Areas to protect this species. (Final Recirculated EIRBIS, p. 4.7-70.) Four of these Conservation Areas contain Core Habitat and 16 protect Other Conserved IIabitat. (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 FTR/EIS, p. 4.7-70.) The MSIICP 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 Patens 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 29 000038, Willow Dole, East Indio hills, and Thousand Palms Conservation Areas where a substantial lowering of the water table could have a significant adverse impact on mesquite hummocks. (Ibid.) Should monitoring detect a substantial lowering of the water table or a decline in mesquite health, the Plan specifies procedures to be taken to ameliorate potentially signifcant effects. (Ibid) Finally, Section 4.4 of the Plan requires that most Construction Activities in Cabazon, Willow Hole, Thousand Palms, Indio Hills Palms, East Indio Hills, Dos Palmas, Coachella Valley Storn water 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 iongimembris bangsi). Individuals occurring outside the Conservation Areas will be subject to Take, including those occurring east of Desert Hot Springs, on the Big Dune, between the southeni Indio Hills and the Little San Bernardino Mountains, east of the Coachella Canal south of I-10 and in the North Shore area- (Final Recirculated LIR/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. (Ibid) 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 IIabitat for the pocket mouse will be conserved and 40% of the occupied or potential Habitat is conserved under the Plan. ((MSFICP, 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. (NISHCP, 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 .- 000039 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 nelsonr). 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 LIR/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 MS14CP that will reduce Project Impacts. Ninety-six percent of the Essential Habitat for the PISS will be conserved under the Plan. (MSFICP, 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. (Ibid) Fifth, restoration and enhancement of degraded Habitat are options that may be used. (Ibid) And finally, Section 4.4 of the MSHCP (Required Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures) contains further avoidance requirements. That section states that completion of Covered Activities in PBS Habitat in the Cabazon, Snow Creek/Windy Point, and Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains Conservation Areas will be conducted outside of the January I - .Tune 30 lambing season unless otherwise authorized through a Minor Amendment to the Plan with concurrence from the Wildlife Agencies. (MSFICP, 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 1 000040 January 1 — 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 IIabitat in the Cabazon, Snort/ CreelJWindy Point, and Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains Conservation Areas, the Permittees who have such facilities will, with respect to those facilities, develop and innplement 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 - 17T) 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 IIabitat 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 FIR/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 000041 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/E1S, 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. (Ibict.) 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 LIR/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 EWEIS, p. 2-35_) Future proposals for new trails on Reserve Lands in the Santa 33 000042 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 EMMS, 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 IIabitat, soils) where feasible. (Final Recirculated EIRJEIS, 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 EIMIS, 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 MOO 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. (]bid) In addition, certain Allowable Uses in the Reserve System, including activities associated with reserve management, monitoring and scientific research, will not result in any significant land disturbance. (Ibid.) Thus, the Plan will not generate adverse impacts on sensitive cultural resources. (Ibid.) Accordingly, there are no significant impacts to cultural resources from the MSHCP_ 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 EII2/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 EIR/EIS, p. 5-56.) Literature reviews, field suveys 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 EI /E1S, p. 5-22.) The implementation of the Plan will thus ensure that potential impacts to PBS are maintained below a level of significance. 35 000044 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 EHUL-IS, pp. 4.9-27 through 4.9-28.) Three public scoping meetings, which were full), 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. (]bid) More than a dozen meetings were held by the BLM to solicit input and feedback from special interest groups. ([bid.) All meetings of the Project Advisory Group ("PAG"), which met approximately once a month fxom 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 marmer 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 EIRJEIS, 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 BIR/EIS, p. 4.9-L) 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. 14. Idazards and I3azardous Materials 00004U 36 The MSHCP does not require or promote the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. (Final Recirculated EiR/EIS, pp. 4.9-28 through 4.9-29.) Nor will the Plan facilitate a hazardous release of materials, substances or waste. (Final Recirculated EIR/Els 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 ElR/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. (Ibid.) Nor does the Plan allow for or impair an adopted emergency response plan. (Ibid.) Finally, the Plan will not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands. (Ibid) Management of the Reserve System will entail the lituited 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 darn. (Final Recirculation EMUMS 4.6-5.) Further, the Plan will not in itself permit housing within a 100-year flood hazard 37 000046 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 world 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 MSIICP 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 MS14CP will conserve many floodplain areas, it will reduce the potential for structures to be built in such areas. (Final Recirculated E1R/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 EMJEIS, p. 4.6-6.) For the above reasons, the MSIICP 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 MSIICP 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 Califoniia Association of Governments ("SCAG"), SCAG based its map on the information largely provided it by member cities. Utilizing this information provided by SCAG, the MSIICP 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 08 000047 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/ETS, 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 MSIICP, 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 MSIdCP 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 MSFICP does not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. (Ibid; Final Recirculated EIR/BlS § 4.5.) 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 690049 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 EIRIEIS, 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 perimeter trails 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. Tltis 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 5-22J 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 Bighom Institute. 40 000049 (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.) IC. 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 EIRJEIS, 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 suf rient 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 MSIICP. ([bid.) Tbird, 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 00OO50 continued relatively low impact of windf= 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 windfann 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 EIR/EIS, 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 EIR/EIS, 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 tmder the Plan will be limited to minor construction projects associated with installation of fencing, and the construction of trails and irailhead 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/B1S, 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 000051 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 4.9-7.) 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 inxpacts 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 MR/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 I.1 million acres, impacts to future commercial Development are less than significant. 43 009052 Approximately 14,000 of the 15,000 acres of land currently designated for industrial use are located outside the Conservation Areas. (Final Recirculated EIRMS, 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 Idousing. 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.) In 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/ETS, 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 MSIICP 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 Pennittees in the Coachella Valley. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.9-19.) This will facilitate the O&M of public facilities acid the delivery of services by these Permittees. (Ibid.) The MSHCP will provide the basis for the issuance or 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 44 000053 can proceed and be maintained. (Final Recirculated MWEIS, p. 4.9-20_) Southern California Edison ("SCE") is not a Pennittee tinder 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 MSIICP 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 constriction of new public utilities or facilities, including above ground and subsurface energy, fuel or telecommunication transmission facilities. (Final Recirculated E1R/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 EMMS, p. 4.9-22.) Moreover, landfill related activities will be Covered Activities under the Plan, thereby creating a beneficial impact. (Final Recirculated EII2/EIS, p. 4.9-22.) Therefore, the MSIICP 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 E1R/EIS, 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. (Ibid) The Plan could generate minor amounts of waste when trash is cleaned Lip 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. ®QQQJ54 45 0. 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 EIRIEIS, 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 Plau. 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 Motmtains. (Final Recirculated EIR/E1S, p. 5-67.) These trails extend from the Snow Creek area west of Palm Springs to Martinez Canyon soutl-i 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 maxirnutn-usage months (January through April). (Ibid.) Only three trails totaling about 10 miles will be closed during the "hot season" from June 15 through September 30. (Ibid.) Data exists indicating that as the weather gets hotter, human trail use decreases. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, 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 EIRJEIS, 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 000055 wildlife management principles where study results may be less than definitive. (Ibid.) Depending on study results, future restrictions on recreational use of existing trails may or may not be imposed. (Ibid ) 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. (]bid) 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 EIR/EIS, 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 ibis 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 .Iacinto 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 EIWEIS, p. 4.9- 22.) Section 7.3-2 of the MSIICP 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/RIS, p. 4.9-22; MSIICP, § 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 lire 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 000056 would not have adverse impacts on parks but instead will have a positive impact on recreation. (See Section 0 above.) Thus, no significant impacts to recreation will result from implementation of the MSHCP. Q. Transportation The MS14CP 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 72 and 7.3 of the Plan. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.3-T) The MS14CP includes design and siting guidelines for planned roadways. (Ibid.) The implementation of these guidelines will ensure that planned roadways are designed and constructed in a manner consistent with the objectives of the MSIICP, 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 EIRUS, pp. 4.3-6 through 4.3-9.) Since the operation, maintenance and construction of existing and planned roadways are covered activities within the MSIICP Conservation Area, potential transportation -related impacts resulting from implementation of the MSIICP will be less than significant. However, other roads are not Covered Activities tinder the Plan and will not receive Take Authorization. (Final Recirculated EUVEIS, 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/E1S, 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 EWEIS, 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 000057 Authorization for Emergency access and activities in the MSHCP Reserve System. (Ibid.) The MSIICP 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 MSIICP. (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 FERT11ER 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/ETS, pp. 9-IL 9-13); Transportation, Traffic, and Circulation (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, pp. 9-14 to -15; 9-17); Mineral, Energy, and Timber Resources (Final Recirculated EIR/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 RIR/EIS, pp. 9-44 to -45); Parks Trails and Recreation (Final Recirculated EIRJE IS, pp. 9-45 to - 48); Air Quality (Final Recirculated EIR/ETS, 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 ETR/ETS, 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 EIR/EIS, pp. 9-51 to -52); and Growth - Inducing Impacts (Final Recirculated EIR/ETS, 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 Ca1.3d 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 OUGG58 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: Obtain Permits from the Wildlife Agencies to authorize Take for the Covered Activities. (Final Recirculated EIR/E1S, p. 1-6.) 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/LIS, 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 EMMS, 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 EIR/EIS, p. 2-3.) The Preferred Alternative will conserve 27 species ("Covered Species") and 27 natural communities. (Final Recirculated EIRIEIS, 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 far 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 E1R/EIS. Table E-L) 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 50 000059 Project Alternative. (Final Recirculated E1R/EIS, pp_ 2-51 through 2-64.) These alternatives are discussed below. One other altemative considered would have fully protected the Habitat of the Covered Species in the Plan Area. (Final Recirculated EIl2/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. (]bid.) Thus, that alternative was initially considered but eliminated from farther review. (Ibid) B. Public Lands Alternative 1. Descrivtion 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. 2-5L) 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 Link-agcs 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 Linder the Plan. (Final Recirculated EMiEIS, p. 2-51.) In total, this alternative would result in the Conservation of 19.5% less acreage than under the Preferred Alternative. (Final EWLIS, p. 4.8-25.) 2. Finding This alternative fails to meet the basic Project objectives, would not substantially reduce significant envirorunental impacts and would result in increased impacts. 3. Sunnortina 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/EJS, 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 EIRMS, 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. 51 000030 (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 outer 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 suet. 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 FIR/PIS, 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 Alterative 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 000001 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 EMMS, 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. ((bin.) 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_ Su000rtina 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. (Ibid.) 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 1 would not be met. If basic Project objective I was not met, then basic Project objective 3 would not be met. If no Take Permit was issued (or issued for fewer species), then no streamlined regulatory process would exist to assist the processing of Development projects. This, in turn, would fail to improve the future economic Development in the Plan Area. This alternative would conserve far less permanent open space and community edges, and provide fewer recreational opportunities than the Preferred Alternative. Therefore, this alternative frustrates the purposes of basic Project objective 4. 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. 53 600062 D_ Enhanced Conservation Alternative 1. Deseriotion This alternative would expand upon the MSHCP by adding Conservation Lands to the Plan as listed in the MUM. (Final Recirculated EIIt/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. .S'ullnortin$ Exolanation 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. (Ibid) Significant conflicts with local, county. State or Federal land use plans, politics or controls would result, and the alternative would physically divide established communities. (Final Recirculated EMMS, pp. 42-8 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/E1S, 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 GOUGG3 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 IIabitat value of the Reserve. (Ibid.) This Alternative would also conflict with basic Project objectives 1 and J. 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 1. bescrintion 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- 3- Sunnorting 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 EIRJEIS, p. 2-63.) Therefore, there would be no process in place to provide Take Authorization for Covered Species and no Core IIabitat 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 flan 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 aaaas� 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 IIabitat for 27 proposed Covered Species and 27 natural communities that occur within the Plan Area. (MSIdCP, p. 3-15; Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 2-63.) IIabitat 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 fox 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. 56©Q��� ]RE IT FURTIIER RESOLVED by the CVAG Executive Committee that staff shall .(ale 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 1 Oth day of September, 2007. AXES: ID NOES: Pr ABSTAIN: Richard Kite, Chair Coachella Valley Association of Governments Vohlmuth, Executive Director hella Valley Association of Governments APPROVED /ASS TO FORM: & Toni Eggebraaten, CVAG Counsel - 0000ss 57 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS TO ESTABLISH PROCEDURES AND REQUIREMENTS FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COACHELLA VALLEY MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS. SECTION 1. TITLE This Resolution shall be known as the "Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Implementation Policy." SECTION U. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE A. The City Council finds that the ecosystems of the City of Palm Springs ("City"), the Coachella Valley and surrounding mountains located in central Riverside County and the vegetation communities and sensitive species they support are fragile, irreplaceable resources that are vital to the general welfare of all residents, these vegetation communities and natural areas contain habitat value which contributes to the region's environmental resources; and special protections for these vegetation communities and natural areas must be established to prevent future endan,erment of the plant and animal species that are dependent upon them, This Resolution will protect the City's and the region's biological resources, vegetation communities, and natural areas, and prevent their degradation and loss by guiding development outside of biological resource core areas, and by establishing mitigation standards which will be applied to development projects Adoption and implementation of this Resolution will enable the City to achieve the conservation goals set forth in the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan ("MSHCP" ). to implement the associated Implementing - Agreement executed by the City Council on , 2007, and to preserve the ability of affected property owners to make reasonable use of their land consistent with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA"), the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), the Federal Endangered Species Act ("FESA"), the California Endangered Species Act ("CESA"), the California Natural Community Conservation Planning Act ("NCCP Act"), and other applicable laws. B. The purpose and intent of this Resolution is to maintain and restore biological diversity and the natural ecosystem processes which support this diversity, to protect vegetation communities and natural areas within the City, the Coachella Valley and the surrounding mountains located in central Riverside County which RVPU13�PAVILA\738337 1 000067 support species covered under the MSHCP, to maintain a future of economic development within the City by providing a streamlined regulatory process from which development can proceed in an orderly process, and to protect the existing character of the City and the region through the implementation of a system of reserves which will provide for permanent open space, community edges, and habitat conservation for species covered by the MSHCP. SECTION III. APPLICATION OF REGULATIONS Except as provided in Section IV, this Resolution shall apply to all land within the City shown on the MSHCP Plan Area Map, attached as Exhibit "1" hereto. Upon application to the City for a development project, an applicant shall be required to comply with the procedures set forth in this Resolution. Upon the City's initiation of a project that is subject to CEQA, the City shall be. required to comply with the procedures set forth in this Resolution No project requiring a discretionary, or certain ministerial permits or approvals that could have adverse impacts to species covered under the MSHCP shall be approved by the City, and no City -initiated public project shall be undertaken, unless the project is consistent with the MS171CP and this Resolution. SECTION TV. EXEMPTIONS This Resolution shall not apply to the following A. The adoption or amendment of the City's General Plan. B. The adoption or amendment of any land use or zoning ordinance. C. Any project for which and to the extent that a vesting tentative map pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act, or a development agreement pursuant to Government Code sections 65864 et seq., approved or executed prior to adoption of this Resolution, confers vested rights under the City's ordinances or state law to proceed with the project notwithstanding the enactment of this Resolution. Projects subject to this exemption must comply with all provisions of any applicable state and federal law. D. Any project for which the City Council determines that application of this Resolution would result in the property owner being deprived of all reasonable economic use of the property in violation of federal or state constitutional prohibitions against the taking of property without just compensation. SECTION V. PROCEDURES A. The City shall ensure compliance with Conservation Area requirements and measures as set forth in Section 4 of the MSHCP. 13. The City shall impose, as a condition to the City's approval of a Discretionary Project and certain ministerial Projects, such conditions as are necessary to ensure surveys are prepared for the project as required by Sections 4.3 and 4 4 of the MSHCP. 000068 R V P L BNA VI I.A\73 S332. I C. The City shall impose as a condition to the City's approval of a project such conditions as necessary to ensure the project complies with and implements the applicable Land Use Adjacency Guidelines set forth in Section 4 5 of the MSHCP. D. The City shall ensure that public and private projects cotnply with the Avoidance, Minimization and Mitigation Measures set forth in Section 4.4 of the MSHCP. E. The City shall transmit any collected Local Development Mitigation Fees, other appropriate fees and associated interest as described in Section 5 ?.1.1 of the MSHCP to the CVCC at least quarterly. F. The City shall contribute appropriate mitigation for City public projects as set forth in the MSHCP. G. The City shall participate as a member agency in the CVCC as set forth in Section 6 1 1 of the MSHCP. H. The City shall participate as a member of the RMOC as set forth in Section 6.1.3 of the MSHCP, as appropriate. I. The City shall participate in the Joint Review Process as set forth in Section 6 6.1 1 of the MSHCP for projects in the Conservation Ai•eas. J. The City shall manage MSHCP Reserve System lands and conservation easements owned or leased by the City pursuant to Sections 8 and 9 of the MSHCP. K. The City shall maintain a record of total acres developed and their location within City jurisdiction and transmit such information monthly to the CVCC. L. The City shall transmit any changes in City boundaries or general plan land use designations to the CVCC at the end of each calendar year. M. Pursuant to the MSHCP, the City may transfer any property interest acquired or obtained in fee title or as a conservation easement to the CVCC for management. The City may also grant a conservation easement to the California Department of Fish and Game for any property interest obtained pursuant to Section V of this Resolution N. Carry out all other applicable requirements of the MSHCP. SECTION VI. DEFINITIONS For purposes of this Resolution, the following terns shall have the meaning set forth herein: HUGS RVKMUZAVn.A173M2.1 A. "Area Plan" means a community planning area defined in the County of Riverside General Plan Four County of Riverside Area Plans are located within the MSHCP Plan Area. B. "Conservation Areas" means a system of lands described in Section 4.3 of the MSHCP that provide Core Habitat and Other Conserved Habitat for the Covered Species, conserve natural communities, conserve Essential Ecological Processes, and secure Biological Corridors and Linkages between major habitat areas., There are 21 Conservation Areas from which the MSHCP Reserve System will be assembled. C. "MSHCP" means the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan. D. "Map of MS11CP" means the map of the area encompassed by the MSHCP as set forth in the attached Erd-iibit " 1." E. "Discretionary Project" means a proposed project requiring discretionary action by a Permittee, as that term is used in CEQA and defined in State CEQA Guidelines section 15357. SECTION VU. EFFECTIVE DATE The Mayor shall sign this Resolution and the City Clerk shall attest thereto, and thereupon and thereafter this Resolution shall take effect and be in force according to law PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, this day of 2007 Ron Oden, Mayor City of Palm Springs ATTEST James Thompson City Clerk City of Palm Springs AS TO FORM: Douglas Holland, City Attorney R W1I1i\FA V I LA\739332.1 000070 1, James Thompson, City Clerk of the City of Palm Springs do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting thereof, held on the day of 2007, and that the foregoing is full, true and correct copy of said Resolution James Thompson, City Clerk 000071 P,VPUA �PA�q I,A1738332.1 Recirculated Final Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan and Natural Community Conservation Plan Plan Area CVNSHCP Boundary City Boundaries Major Roads Indian Reservations (Not a part) 2005 natural color mosaic courlasy of Nallon a I Agricu Mural Imagaq P rop ram. DISCUMER Napa and pair are b 5. usad ror ' a pveynses only. Nrp halurea r .ppmalmafx, and a nol a salL� a uoN losorveyfna or aryrn�m'npalzdarda CPA, and Rua Count' of R4erslda ma Fe no erarranly pr guaranlea as fo Oil con:eni flrla socrce is aRan 1M1ird parryf, a[[uncy. L'merines., ar coG•pfa:e9eaa -c anyeebkf oafrkr Mfoatl, antl assvaes no fear respanslSl4ry, br0 lnRvmad, LG+h,'netlonJ N rup Any use sI Nrs pmd,rrf wdA rezpxl fp mcy and paav-!s.'pn sAaQ G Mr sore responziMOry o1 Ne user. Ia�,•l IOAV CI Map by N 4 Was PeIM1I, 6YA6 Riverside Collnfv Safr Diego County Sell Bernal dino County Riverside Collrlly F .. Exhibit 1 : Plan Area CITY OF PALM SPRINGS PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION (V CITY CLERK'S DEPARTMENT James Thompson, City Clerk City Council Meeting Date: October 3, 2007 Subject: COACHELLA VALLEY MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION I, Kathie Hart, CMC, Chief Deputy City Clerk, of the City of Palm Springs, California, do hereby certify that a copy of the attached Notice of Public Hearing will be published in the Desert Sun on September 22, 2007. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. `L��rj- Kathie Hart, CMC Chief Deputy City Clerk AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING I, Dolores Strickstein, Secretary, of the City of Palm Springs, California, do hereby certify that a copy of the attached Notice of Public Hearing was posted at City Hall, 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Drive, on the exterior legal notice posting board and in the Office of the City Clerk on September 18, 2007. I�ddeeccllare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dolores Strickstein, Secretary 000073 PROOF OF PUBLICATION (2015.5.C.C.P) STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of Riverside I AMA citimn of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above -entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of a printer of the, DESERT SUN PUBLISHING CObIPANY a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published in the city Of Palm Springs, County of Riverside, and which newspaper has been adjudged a newspaper of general circvlation by the Superior Court of the County of Riverside, State of California under the date of March 24, 1988. Case Number 191236; that the notice, of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than non pariel, has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the Following dates, to wit: September 22'a, 2007 All in the year 2007 I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated at Palm Springs, California this —24a', -- day of September, , 2007 "'Zz J [ai �W Si hamrc� UJ 0< OJ �v r''y0 txl rU 5 'I his is space for County Clerk'% Filing Stamp NO 2963 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CITY COUNCIL CITY OF PALM SPRINGS COACHELLA VALLEY MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN / NATURAL COMMUNITY CONSERVATION PLAN (CVMSHCP/NCCP) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Palm Springs, California, will hold a public hearing at its meet- ing of October $, 2007. The City Council meeting begins at 6:00 p.m., in the Council Chamber at City Hall, 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs. The purpose of this hearing is to consider approval of the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan / Natural Community Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP/NCCP) and Implementing Agreement. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City is a Responsible Agency for the project under Section 20169 of the State Public Resources Code, and will consider certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report. REVIEW OF PROJECT INFORMATION: The staff report and ether supporting documents regarding this project are also available for public review at City Hall between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Please con- tact the Office of the City Clerk (760) 323-8204 if you would like to schedule an appointment to review these documents. . COMMENT ON THIS APPLICATION: Response to this notice may be made verbally at the Public Hearing and/or in writing before the hearing, written comments may be made to the City Council -by letter (for mad or hand delivery).to: , _ James Thompson, City Clerk 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 Any challenge of the proposed project in court may be limited to raising only those issues raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior to, the public hearing. (Government Code Section 65009(b)(2)). An opportunity will be given at said hearing for all Interested persons to be heard. Questions regarding this case may be directed to Craig A. Ewing, Director of Planning Services at (760) 323-B245. Si necosita ayuda con esta carts, portavor. Ilame a la Ciudad de Palm Springs y puede hablar con Nadine Fieger telefono (760) 323-8245. Published 9/22/07 James Inompson, Uiry aerie NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CITY COUNCIL CITY OF PALM SPRINGS COACHELLA VALLEY MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN / NATURAL COMMUNITY CONSERVATION PLAN (CVMSHCP/NCCP) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Palm Springs, California, will hold a public hearing at its meeting of October 3, 2007. The City Council meeting begins at 6:00 p.m., in the Council Chamber at City Hall, 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs. The purpose of this hearing is to consider approval of the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan / Natural Community Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP/NCCP) and Implementing Agreement. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City is a Responsible Agency for the project under Section 20169 of the State Public Resources Code, and will consider certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report. REVIEW OF PROJECT INFORMATION: The staff report and other supporting documents regarding this project are also available for public review at City Hall between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5-00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Please contact the Office of the City Clerk (760) 323-8204 if you would like to schedule an appointment to review these documents. COMMENT ON THIS APPLICATION: Response to this notice may be made verbally at the Public Hearing and/or in writing before the hearing. Written comments may be made to the City Council by letter (for mail or hand delivery) to: James Thompson, City Clerk 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 Any challenge of the proposed project in court may be limited to raising only those issues raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior to, the public hearing. (Government Code Section 65009(b)(2)). An opportunity will be given at said hearing for all interested persons to be heard. Questions regarding this case may be directed to Craig A. Ewing, Director of Planning Services at (760) 323-8245. Si necesita ayuda con esta carta, porfavor Ilame a la Ciudad de Palm Springs y puede hablar con Nadine Fieger telefono (760) 323-8245, r mes Thompson, City Clerk -_ 000074 CVAG COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION of GOVERNMENTS Blythe - Cathedral City Coachella • Desert Hot Springs • Indian Wells • Indm • La Cuwnta • Palm Desert • Palm Springs • Rancho Mirage County of Riverside Aqua Caliente Band of Cahwlle Indians • Cabazon Band of Miasion Indians • Torres Martinez Desert Cahwlla Indians September 17, 2007 James Thompson, City Clerk City of Palm Springs 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 Re: Coachella Vallev Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Dear James Thompson_ On September 10, 2007, the Executive Committee of the Coachella Valley Association of Governments ("CVAG") certified the Final Recirculated Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement ("EIR/ElS") for the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan ("MSHCP" or "Plan) and executed the appropriate implementing documents. Your agency is a Permittee under the Plan and thus must take certain actions, including approval of the MSHCP, Implementing Agreement ("IA") and CEQA findings to effectuate the Plan. We have provided a list of those actions below and have attached model documents for your consideration. Please return to CVAG signed copies of the below documents as soon as they are executed (with the exception of the staff reports). Approval of documents that significantly deviate from the model documents could delay Take Permit issuance. Please do not hesitate to contact our office if you have any questions about the listed actions or model documents. 1. Responsible Aeencv Findinars. For purposes of this Plan, your City is a Responsible Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). As such, CEQA requires your City to make certain findings with respect to significant environmental impacts potentially caused by adoption and implementation of the MSHCP. Your City will also need to approve the MSHCP and IA (these were delivered to your agency the week of September 4, 2007). For your convenience, we have attached a model resolution making responsible agency findings and approval of the MSHCP and IA, thereby accomplishing these tasks. (See Exhibit "A".) PLEASE RETURN 1 FULL SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THE RESPONSIBLE AGENCY FINDINGS TO CVAG 73-71 D Fred Waring Drive, Suite 200 - Palm Desert, CA 92260 - (760) 346-1127 a -f Lrj � N nr"• UD rT'1 C= YO_­0 rn d N 3rtn C7 0 ern N rod FAX (7E�D) 34�-5949 vl COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION of GOVERNMENTS 2. Imolementing Agreement. You were previously provided with a complete copy of the MSHCP IA. We are attaching a copy of the MSIICP lA signature page for your agency's signature. (See Exhibit "B".) The IA will be signed in counterparts by representatives of all of the governmental agencies involved in the implementation of the Plan. PLEASE RETURN I FULL ORIGINAL AND 29 SIGNATURE PAGES OF THE IA TO CVAG 3. Plan lmnlementation Resolution The IA requires the City to adopt and maintain ord aances or resolutions that result in the effective implementation of the MSHCP. Please find attached a model resolution which sets out the policies, procedures and requirements in order to effectively implement the Plan. (See Exhibit "C".) Please note that the model ordinance calls for attachment of the Final Recirculated EMJEIS previously provided to the City and CVAG's Findings. PLEASE RETURN 1 FULL SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THE PLAN IMPLEMENTATION RESOLUTION TO CVAG 4, Coachella Vallev Frinee-Toed Lizard Memorandum of Understanding ("CVFTL MOU"). Attached, please find the CVFTL MOU. (See Exhibit "D"_) The CVFTL MOU will be signed in counterparts by representatives of all of the governmental agencies involved in the implementation of the Plan. PLEASE RETURN I FULL ORIGINAL AND 19 SIGNATURE PAGES OF THE CVFTL MOU TO CVAG 5. Adoption of Mitigation Fee. The City is responsible for imposing a mitigation fee on new development within the plan area in order to meet the conservation goals set forth in the MSHCP_ The Local Development Mitigation Fee ordinance will need to be considered before permit issuance, which is expected in early 2008- CVAG will prepare a model fee ordinance and forward it to the participating jurisdictions in the coming months under separate cover. 6. Notice of Determination. Filing and posting of a Notice of Determination ("NOD") with the County Clerk begins a 30 day statute of limitations period during which a party may challenge the Plan. The NOD must be filed within five (5) days of project approval. We strongly urge your City to file and post an NOD and forward a copy to the State of California Office of Planning and Research, otherwise the statute of limitation period could be substantially lengthened_ We are providing the City with a model NOD. (See Exhibit "E"_) The City should include contact information for the City -appointed designee, as well as an address for the Custodian of Records who maintains the documents on the City's behalf Normally, filing an NOD requires payment of both a County filing fee ($64) and a Fish and Game fee ($2500); however, because CVAG has already paid a Department of Fish and Game fee for the MSHCP, your City will only be responsible for paying the County filing fee. We are providing you with a copy of CVAG's Department of Fish and Game fee receipt. (See Exhibit "F".) A copy of the receipt must be filed with your City's NOD in order to avoid an additional payment of the $2500 Fish and Game fee. PLEASE FILE THE ENCLOSED NODS WITH COUNTY CLERK AND OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH WITHIN FIVE DAYS OF APPROVAL 00007B COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION of GOVERNMENTS 7. Model Staff Renorts. For your convenience, attached please find model staff reports for both the MSHCP and the CVFTL MOU for distribution to your decisionmakers and inclusion in your agenda. (See Exhibits `&' and "H".) As stated above, please to not hesitate to contact me or Jinn Sullivan if you should have any questions about the listed actions or model documents. Documents returned to CVAG should be addressed to Mary Godfrey. Sincerely, Katie Barrows Director of Environmental Resources Enclosures R V PUB\PA V n,A173 83 79.1 000077