Item 6A

STAFF REPORT Subject: La Quinta Peninsular Bighorn Sheep Barrier Project and Final Environmental

Impact Report Contact: Katie Barrows, Director of Environmental Resources (kbarrows@cvag.org) Recommendation: Adopt Resolution 19-006, certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH # 2016021102) for the La Quinta Peninsular Bighorn Sheep Barrier Project, adopting findings and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting program, and approving Alternative A2 of the La Quinta Peninsular Bighorn Sheep Barrier Project. Background: Efforts to develop a plan for a barrier to prevent bighorn sheep from accessing urban areas in La Quinta was initiated in February 2014 following receipt of a letter from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). This letter officially notified the CVCC and the City of La Quinta that Peninsular bighorn sheep (PBS) are using artificial sources of food and water in unfenced areas within the City of La Quinta. The letter referenced a requirement in Section 8.2.4.1 of the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP) that states, “. . . if Peninsular bighorn sheep are using artificial sources of food or water in unfenced areas of existing urban Development within or near a Conservation Area, the CVCC (unless otherwise agreed to by the applicable Local Permittee) shall cause to be constructed a barrier to sheep access to cure the problem within 2 years of such notice. The location of this barrier (i.e., an 8-foot fence or functional equivalent) shall be determined by CVCC based on its ability to obtain permission/access to the necessary lands.” This staff report describes the proposed Project, the environmental analysis, community outreach, and recommended action to certify the Final Environmental Impact Report. The primary objective of the La Quinta Peninsular Bighorn Sheep Barrier Project (“Project”) is to protect PBS by preventing them from accessing and coming to harm from using urban lands, including golf courses and landscaping, artificial water bodies, and roadways. Peninsular bighorn sheep are listed as “endangered” under the federal Endangered Species Act, and “threatened” under the California Endangered Species Act. PBS are also a fully protected species under California Fish and Game Code 4700, which prohibits “take” or possession of the species at any time, except for approved scientific purposes. In addition to full state and federal protection, PBS is also a covered species under the CVMSHCP. The CVMSHCP makes provisions for management actions in instances where PBS use urbanized areas and are exposed to associated hazards as referenced above. The CVMSHCP also serves to implement the multi-agency Peninsular Bighorn Sheep Recovery Plan adopted in 2000.a The focus on PBS use of urban areas revolves around concerns about bighorn sheep becoming habituated to feeding on golf courses and in urban areas rather than in their natural habitat, and the resulting sheep health and morbidity effects. In the Project area, urban development along

a “Recovery Plan for Bighorn Sheep in the Peninsular Ranges, California,” U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, 2000.

the toe of the slopes of the Santa Rosa Mountains foothills has pushed PBS out of much of their former alluvial fan habitat, eliminating or restricting access to historic forage and bedding areas. The installation of a fence to prevent bighorn sheep from accessing golf courses and urban areas was prompted by increasing bighorn sheep use of these urban areas which started in the summer of 2012. GPS collars placed on bighorn sheep in the La Quinta area in fall 2015 and fall 2016 are providing ongoing data on their movements and habitat use. The data from these collars indicate that an “urban ewe group” has become increasingly addicted to golf courses and urban areas. Groups of 30 to 50 PBS are regularly observed at PGA West and have more recently been observed at the Tradition; smaller groups have regularly been seen at The Quarry golf course and Lake Cahuilla County Park. Large numbers of bighorn sheep present a possible safety hazard on roads and this concern has been expressed by homeowners’ association representatives at PGA West. Since 2012, seven adult bighorn sheep and thirteen lambs have died in the Project area, due to various factors including oleander poisoning, drowning in the canal, collision with a vehicle, and disease. Initial work on a proposed barrier included review of potential routes, evaluation of constraints and opportunities, estimated costs, and identifying partners and stakeholders. The City of Rancho Mirage was consulted on the costs and process they undertook to construct a bighorn sheep fence in 2003. Meetings and site visits were held to assess the situation along the toe of the Santa Rosa Mountains in La Quinta. Outreach was initiated to golf course communities in the area, including PGA West, the Quarry, and Tradition Golf Club. Informal meetings were held with various stakeholders in the Project area including homeowners’ associations. CVCC staff acknowledges and appreciates the cooperation and assistance from the city of La Quinta, golf course communities, and other stakeholders in working with us on this issue. Fences to prevent PBS use of urban areas were installed by the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) adjacent to the Coachella Canal and in 2017 by the City of La Quinta along the toe of slope at SilverRock Resort (see Figure 1). Environmental Analysis. Under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) it was determined that an Environment Impact Report should be completed. On March 10, 2016, a public scoping meeting was held at La Quinta City Hall to get input on issues of concern for the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR). A presentation on the proposed Project was provided, followed by questions from the attendees. The Draft EIR was released on January 13, 2017, with a notice of availability to public agencies, nearby property owners, and individuals who expressed an interest. A notice was published in the Desert Sun and La Prensa Hispana newspapers and copies of the Draft EIR were available at La Quinta City Hall, La Quinta Public Library and CVAG office. The public comment period closed on March 3, 2017. During the 45-day public review period, CVCC received a total of 37 comments, including 21 from individuals. As required by law, the Final EIR including written responses to all comments received during the comment period were sent to all those who submitted comments on the Draft EIR and posted on the CVMSHCP website 10 days prior to the April 26 meeting. The Final EIR is available online and includes copies of comments received and the responses to those comments. The comment letters and emails received from individuals, agencies, and organizations are provided in the Final EIR, Section 2.0 Response to Comments. The Bureau of Reclamation, which controls land along the Coachella Canal and Lake Cahuilla, completed an Environmental Assessment, a federal environmental document that was prepared in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), for the proposed Project. The Environmental Assessment was circulated for public comment and completed in September 2018; final approval is expected on April 26, following CVCC action on the Final EIR.

Alternative and Alignment Variations Recommended for Project Approval. A variety of barrier materials and methods to prevent PBS access to urbanized areas were investigated and considered in the Draft EIR. The evaluation included examining possible alternatives to fencing to keep sheep from accessing the golf courses and associated developments and the Coachella Canal that bounds much of the eastern portion of the Project area. None of the alternatives to fencing were found to meet all project objectives. Alternative alignments were also evaluated based upon physical constraints and opportunities, and on conservation goals and regulations for the PBS. Four alternatives were fully analyzed in the Draft EIR: Alternative A, Toe-of-Slope Alignment; Alternative B, Ridgeline Alignment; and Alternative C, Cove to Lake Alignment; and Alternative D, “No Project” Alternative. These alternatives are further addressed in the Final EIR. In considering the issues and concerns raised by various parties of interest, a refined version of Alternative A, referred to as Alternative A2, was developed and analyzed to address concerns expressed by CVWD, the Bureau of Reclamation, and by property owners and community members in the vicinity of PGA West and the Coachella Canal. Staff recommends that the CVCC approve Alternative A2 as the Proposed Project as described in the Final EIR and outlined below. Alternative A2 routes the fence in the PGA West area away from the canal and nearby golf course, and over the ridge as shown in Figure 1. This route departs from the Alternative A alignment and routes the fence upslope in a westerly direction, then over a ridge where it cannot be seen from the urban area. The fence route then proceeds across CVWD property southeast along the west side of the north-south ridge separating the fence from the PGA West golf course and the Coachella Canal. The Alternative A2 alignment rejoins the original Alternative A alignment in the vicinity of the County Sheriff’s shooting range and proceeds south along the western edge of Lake Cahuilla County Park. The ability to install the fence along the Proposed Project A2 route is dependent in several locations on permission from private property owners for access. As described in the Final EIR the first phase of the Project will occur from the existing CVWD fence in the vicinity of PGA West to the south end of Lake Cahuilla, where impacts to PBS and their use of urban areas has been most prevalent. The SilverRock fence installed in 2017 limited access to that golf course, but PBS are still able to get to SilverRock through PGA West. The Alternative A2 alignment has been discussed and reviewed during field visits with CVWD, Reclamation staff, and PGA West management and homeowners’ associations. PGA West ownership has indicated a willingness to allow access for the portions of Alternative A2 that involve their land and negotiations are in progress. PGA West Homeowners’ association representatives have indicated their support. CVCC will work with landowners, wildlife agencies, and other partners to develop an adaptive management and monitoring plan to assess the response of PBS to the first phase of the fence. Construction of subsequent phases may be modified based on property owner input, route refinements, and data on the movement and response of PBS, and subject to appropriate CEQA review. In recent conversations, the Quarry has indicated their support for a fence if a route can be identified that reasonably accommodates their concerns. Tradition Golf Club representatives have also indicated a willingness to work with CVCC to identify a route that keeps the bighorn sheep off golf course and residential areas, while avoiding impacts to their property owners. CVCC will continue to work with private property owners to address concerns and where necessary, request access to private property for fence construction. As noted in the CVMSHCP, the ultimate location of the fence within the approved fence alignment corridor shall be determined by CVCC based on its ability to obtain permission to construct on the necessary lands. It should be noted that while Figure 1 identifies the proposed alignment of the fence, a corridor concept allows for the necessary flexibility in determining the final alignment

within that corridor. Within the fence alignment corridor, the fence may have to be moved up or downslope to accommodate the rugged terrain or to avoid sensitive resources. In some cases, the fence may be set back from the toe of slope to reduce visual impacts and provide a buffer between sheep habitat and urban areas. Once the final location within the approved fence alignment corridor has been determined, pre-construction surveys and staking shall be accomplished to ensure that any potential impacts are avoided, minimized or mitigated, in conformance with the Project EIR. The loss of PBS access to habitat that could occur under Alternative A2 would require offset or mitigation. The CVMSHCP describes a Transfer of Conservation Objectives as a process to accomplish this mitigation. Through a Transfer of Conservation Objectives, the authorized disturbance identified in Section 4.1.26 of the CVMSHCP could be used to mitigate the loss of habitat made unavailable by the fence. This transfer will require the approval of the City of La Quinta and, for later phases, Riverside County. Staff has discussed this provision with respective staff members from both jurisdictions. Prior to construction, a request to approve a Transfer of Conservation Objectives will need to be submitted to the City of La Quinta for consideration during a regularly scheduled city council meeting. This transfer also requires a Minor Amendment to the CVMSHCP with Wildlife Agency Concurrence, which will be requested prior to construction. A request for the remaining authorized disturbance will be submitted to the County of Riverside prior to construction of later phases of the fence. In a March 3, 2017 comment letter on the Draft EIR, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife expressed concerns about several aspects of the Transfer of Conservation Objectives approach being taken to mitigate impacts to bighorn sheep from loss of habitat due to the fence. A letter was received from CDFW on April 8, 2019 indicating their acceptance of Transfer of Conservation Objectives as a suitable mitigation measure, and their willingness to work with CVCC to complete this project (see Attachment 3). Community Outreach. Since the initial contact with property owners at PGA West and other golf course communities, when concerns were expressed about not allowing bighorn sheep to access food and water in urban areas, attitudes seem to have changed. Bighorn sheep are increasingly trampling landscaping, eating landscape plants, and damaging golf courses. They are now considered by some as a nuisance and stronger support for the fence has developed. Throughout the process, staff has met with managers and board members at PGA West, the Quarry, and Tradition. CVCC staff also conferred with Riverside County Parks District, CVWD, Reclamation, the BLM, and other stakeholders. Field trips to review route alignments and identify areas of concern have been held with each of these communities. Meetings and presentations with representatives of PGA West Residential 1 and Residential 2 homeowners’ associations were also held. Next Steps: Pending certification of the Final EIR and approval of Alternative A2 by the CVCC, staff will proceed with steps necessary to construct the initial phase of the fence. A request for bids for a fencing contractor will be circulated, a fence contractor selected, and a contract for phase 1 will be brought before the CVCC for consideration. Agreements for access to private and publicly owned lands will need to be acquired, including an agreement with PGA West, a license agreement with the Bureau of Reclamation, and an encroachment permit from Coachella Valley Water District. Once a fence contractor has been selected, a budget and timeline for the first phase will be developed and presented to the CVCC for consideration. Later phases will follow a similar process. CEQA Requirements. CEQA allows, under the provisions of Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, that the Lead Agency (CVCC) consider the overriding economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of the Project that outweigh the significant environmental impacts identified in the EIR. CEQA also requires that the Lead Agency

make specific findings and explain the impacts, mitigation measures and reasons why it finds that the benefits of the project outweigh the significant impacts identified. The Project EIR determines that there are no unmitigated environmentally significant impacts associated with this Project. A resolution has been prepared for the CVCC’s consideration which makes appropriate CEQA findings. In order to certify the EIR, the CVCC is required to adopt the attached Resolution 19-006 to certify the EIR and to approve Alternative A2. CEQA Findings. As set forth in more detail in the proposed Resolution 19-006 before the Commission, the CVCC has determined and finds, based on the Final EIR and the record as a whole that: (1) The Project will not:

• substantially degrade the quality of the environment; • will not substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; • will not cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels; • threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; will not substantially reduce the

number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare or threatened species; • nor will it eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or

prehistory. (2) The Project will not achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-

term environmental goals. (3) The Project does not generate possible environmental effects that are individually limited

but cumulatively considerable. “Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.

(4) The environmental effects of the Project will not cause substantial adverse effects on human

beings, either directly or indirectly. Fiscal Impact: The cost for the proposed fence will need to be determined based on a competitive bid process for a fence contractor. The CVCC has set aside funds in past years to establish a contingency fund of $5 million, as required under the CVMSHCP, which is available to be used for projects such as this one. Use of these funds for this Project would make them unavailable for other purposes. Staff has reviewed the total costs for fences constructed by CVWD, Rancho Mirage, and La Quinta. However, the portion of the fence alignment that goes over the ridge near PGA West will result in significantly higher costs per linear foot than segments along the toe-of-slope. The cost of the fence will likely be much higher per linear foot. A next step will be to obtain a competitive bid and prepare a budget and timeline for the initial phase to be presented to the CVCC for consideration at a future meeting. This budget will identify the potential for funding from other sources. Attachments: 1. Resolution 19-006 2. Figure 1: La Quinta Bighorn Sheep Barrier Map 3. California Dept. of Fish and Wildlife letter dated April 8, 2019

1

RESOLUTION NO. 19-006

A RESOLUTION OF THE COACHELLA VALLEY

CONSERVATION COMMISSION ADOPTING FINDINGS AND A

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM,

AND CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

REPORT (SCH # 2016021102) PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FOR THE LA QUINTA

PENINSULAR BIGHORN SHEEP BARRIER PROJECT, AND

APPROVING ALTERNATIVE A2 OF THE LA QUINTA

PENINSULAR BIGHORN SHEEP BARRIER PROJECT.

WHEREAS, the Coachella Valley Conservation Commission (“Commission”) is a public

agency of the State of California formed by a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement; and

WHEREAS, the Commission implements the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat

Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP or “Plan”) on behalf of the City

of La Quinta and other "Permittees" covered under the Plan; and

WHEREAS, the primary means of conservation under the Plan is acquisition and management

of Plan conservation lands; and

WHEREAS, the La Quinta Peninsular Bighorn Sheep Barrier Project (Project) is located within

the corporate limits of the City of La Quinta, Riverside County, and comprises a planning area of

approximately 3,000 acres, as further described in Exhibit A (the “Planning Area”), is within or

contiguous to the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains Conservation Area of the Plan; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) (Public Res. Code,

§ 21000 et seq.), the State CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR § 15000 et seq.) and the Commission's Local CEQA

Guidelines, the Coachella Valley Conservation Commission (“Commission”) is the lead agency for the

Project; and

WHEREAS, in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines section 15063, the Commission

evaluated the Project by preparing an Initial Study, to evaluate whether an Environmental Impact Report

(“EIR”) was required; and

WHEREAS, based on the Initial Study, the Commission determined that an EIR should be

prepared because the Project may have a significant effect on the environment in the following areas:

Aesthetics, Biological Resources, Land Use, Cultural Resources, Recreational Resources and Noise; and

WHEREAS, based on the Initial Study, the Commission further determined that impacts to

Agriculture and Forestry Resources, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Geology/Soils, Greenhouse Gas

Emissions, Mineral Resources, Population/Housing, Public Services and Utilities, would be less than

significant and thus need not be analyzed further in the EIR; and

WHEREAS, in compliance with CEQA, the Commission prepared a Draft Environmental Impact

Report (“EIR”) to analyze the potential environmental effects of the Project; and

2

WHEREAS, in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15082, the Commission sent to

the State Office of Planning & Research (SCH No. 2016021102) and the Riverside County Clerk’s Office

a Notice of Preparation ("NOP") for the EIR on February 24, 2016, which was posted for a period of 30

days pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines sections 15082(a), 15103 and 15375; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.9 and State CEQA Guidelines

sections 15082(c) and 15083 the Commission conducted one public scoping meeting on March 10, 2016,

to discuss the Project and to solicit comments on the scope of environmental issues to be discussed in the

Draft EIR; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15082, the Commission solicited

comments from potential responsible agencies, including details about the scope and content of the

environmental information related to the responsible agency’s area of statutory responsibility, as well as

the significant environmental issues, reasonable alternatives and mitigation measures that the responsible

agency would have analyzed in the Draft EIR; and

WHEREAS, sixty-seven (67) written statements were received by the Commission in response to

the NOP, which assisted the Commission in narrowing the issues and alternatives for analysis in the Draft

EIR; and

WHEREAS, a Draft EIR was completed and released for public review on January 13, 2017, and

the Commission initiated a 45-day public comment period by filing a Notice of Completion and

Availability with the State Office of Planning and Research and the Riverside County Clerk. Severe

weather delayed delivery of the Draft EIR to the State Clearinghouse (SCH); the Draft EIR was officially

posted by SCH on January 18, 2017, and the comment period was extended to March 3, 2017; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092 and CEQA Guidelines Section

15085, the Commission also provided a Notice of Completion and Availability to all organizations and

individuals who had previously requested such notice, and published the Notice of Availability on or about

January 13, 2017, in a newspaper of general circulation in the Project area. Copies of the Draft EIR were

provided to approximately fifty-three [53] public agencies, organizations and individuals; and

WHEREAS, the Commission circulated the Draft EIR for a period of 45-days pursuant to State

CEQA Guidelines Section 15087(e), and during the 45-day comment period the Commission consulted

with and requested comments from all responsible and trustee agencies, other regulatory agencies and

others pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15086; and

WHEREAS, during the official public review period for the Draft EIR, the Commission received

thirty-seven (37) written comments, including an acknowledgement from the State Clearinghouse that the

Commission has complied with CEQA environmental review requirements, and the Commission

responded to the comments in the Final EIR; and

WHEREAS, the Commission prepared the Final EIR, which includes the Draft EIR and responses

to comments on the Draft EIR, and, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.5, the Commission

provided copies of the responses to all commenting public agencies at least ten (10) days prior to the

Commission’s consideration of the Final EIR; and

WHEREAS, at its regularly scheduled public meeting on April 26, 2019 the Commission

conducted a public hearing to consider the Final EIR and Project; and

WHEREAS, all the requirements of the Public Resources Code, CEQA, the State CEQA

Guidelines and the Commission’s Local Guidelines have been satisfied by the Commission in the Final

3

EIR, which is sufficiently detailed so that all of the potentially significant environmental effects of the

Project have been adequately evaluated; and

WHEREAS, the Final EIR prepared in connection with the Project sufficiently analyzes both the

feasible mitigation measures necessary to avoid or substantially lessen the Project’s potential

environmental impacts and a range of feasible alternatives capable of eliminating or reducing these effects

in accordance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the Commission’s Local Guidelines; and

WHEREAS, all of the findings and conclusions made by the Commission pursuant to this

Resolution are based on the oral and written evidence presented to it as a whole and the entirety of the

administrative record for the Project, which are incorporated herein by reference, not based solely on the

information provided in this Resolution; and

WHEREAS, environmental resources identified in the Final EIR, which the Commission finds

will not be impacted by the Project, are described in Section 2 below; and

WHEREAS, environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR as less than significant or

potentially significant but which the Commission finds can be mitigated to a level of less than significant,

through the imposition of feasible mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and set forth herein, are

described in Section 3 below; and

WHEREAS, the potentially significant and unavoidable impacts of the Project are identified in

Section 4 below; and

WHEREAS, the cumulative impacts of the Project identified in the Final EIR and set forth herein,

are described in Section 5 below; and

WHEREAS, the Mandatory Findings of Significance of the Project, identified in the Final EIR as

less than significant, are described in Section 6 below; and

WHEREAS, the short-term use versus long-term productivity of the Project, identified in Final

EIR and set forth herein, is described in Section 7; and

WHEREAS, the potential significant and irreversible environmental changes that would result

from the Project identified in the Final EIR and set forth herein, are described in Section 8 below; and

WHEREAS, the existence of any growth-inducing impacts resulting from the Project identified

in the Final EIR and set forth herein, are described in Section 9 below; and

WHEREAS, alternatives to the Project that might eliminate or reduce significant environmental

impacts are described in Section 10 below; and

WHEREAS, prior to taking action, the Commission has heard, been presented with, reviewed and

considered all of the information and data in the administrative record, including the Final EIR, and all

oral and written evidence presented to it during all meetings and hearings; and

WHEREAS, the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the Commission 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 Commission or, any

additional information submitted to the Commission have produced substantial new information requiring

recirculation or additional environmental review under Public Resources Code section 21092.1 and State

CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5; and

4

WHEREAS, on April 26, 2019, the Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on this

Resolution, at which time all persons wishing to testify were heard and the Project was fully considered;

and WHEREAS, after hearing all relevant testimony from staff and the public, and considering the entire

administrative record, the Commission certified the Final EIR and approved the Alternative A2 of the

Project

WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COACHELLA VALLEY

CONSERVATION COMMISSION:

SECTION I

FINDINGS

A. Project Description

The Commission, responding to requests from state and federal wildlife agencies and in

compliance with the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan, planned development

of a barrier to exclude Peninsular bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis nelsoni) from urban areas in the City of

La Quinta, Riverside County, California. The La Quinta Peninsular Bighorn Sheep Barrier Project is also

herein referred to as the PBS Barrier Project or Project. This Project is proposed to mitigate for the urban-

related impacts to Peninsular Bighorn Sheep from their use of artificial sources of food and water and

conflicts with vehicular traffic in urbanized lands, including golf course and residential lands, in the La

Quinta area of the Coachella Valley. Peninsular bighorn sheep are listed as “endangered” under the federal

Endangered Species Act, and “threatened” under the California Endangered Species Act. PBS are also a

fully protected species under California Fish and Game Code 4700, which prohibits “take” or possession

of the species at any time, except for approved scientific purposes.

In addition to full state and federal protection, PBS is also a covered species under the CVMSHCP. The

CVMSHCP makes provisions for management actions in instances where PBS use urbanized areas and

are exposed to associated hazards. The CVMSHCP also serves to implement the multi-agency Peninsular

Bighorn Sheep Recovery Plan adopted in 2000.1 The City of La Quinta is a CVMSHCP Permittee and

subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the Plan. Implementation of the CVMSHCP is overseen

and administered by the Coachella Valley Conservation Commission (CVCC), a joint powers authority

formed by the CVMSHCP Local Permittees pursuant to appropriate legal authorities.

The Project is designed to prevent continuing urban-related impacts to PBS from their use of artificial

sources of food and water in urbanized lands, including golf course and resort residential lands in the

Project area. A variety of barrier materials and methods to prevent PBS access to urbanized areas were

investigated and considered. The evaluation included examining possible alternatives to fencing to keep

sheep from accessing the golf courses and associated developments, and the Coachella Canal that bounds

much of the eastern portion of the Project area. Alternative alignments were also evaluated based upon

physical constraints and opportunities, and on conservation goals for the PBS and the Conservation Area.

The Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) and the SilverRock Resort (City-owned) have already

constructed approximately 9,143± linear feet of sheep fence, including 2,807± linear feet of eight-foot

chain link fence adjacent to the Coachella Canal, and approximately 6,336± linear feet at SilverRock along

the toe of slope.

▪ 1 “Recovery Plan for Bighorn Sheep in the Peninsular Ranges, California,” U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2000.

5

The Draft EIR analyzed the effects of three build alternatives and one additional hybrid build alternative,

as well as a No Project alternative. Alternatives ranged from 67,277± linear feet of fencing in Alternative

A to 24,773± linear feet for Alternative C. One hybrid was also developed for Alternative B, Alternative

B2. Subsequent to the Draft EIR and based on discussions with PGA West, Alternative A2 was presented

in the Final EIR as the preferred project alternative. Alternative A2 routes the fence over the ridge as

shown in Figure 1. This route departs from Alternative A in the vicinity of the Coachella Canal drop

structure within PGA West and proceeds upslope in a westerly direction, then in a southwesterly direction

onto CVWD lands east of CVWD storage reservoirs. The fence will proceed southeast along the west side

of the north-south ridge separating the storage reservoirs and lands to the east, including PGA West and

the Coachella Canal. The Alternative A2 alignment will then rejoin the original Alternative A alignment

in the vicinity of the County Sheriff’s shooting range.

Alternative A2 eliminates approximately 5,391 linear feet of fencing immediately west of the Coachella

Canal, and replaces it with approximately 5,728 linear feet of fencing beyond the ridgeline to the west.

Alternative A2 would isolate approximately 111.60 acres of PBS habitat, in addition to the 130.35± acres

of habitat isolated elsewhere in the project area by Alternative A, for a total of 241.95± acres. Hereinafter,

Alternative A2 is also referred to as the Project.

B. Legal Requirements

Public Resources Code section 21002 states that “public agencies should not approve projects as

proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available, which would

substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]” Section 21002 further states

that the procedures required by CEQA “are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying

both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation

measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects.”

Pursuant to Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code, the Commission may only approve or

carry out a project for which an EIR has been completed that identifies any significant environmental

effects if the Commission makes one or more of the following written finding(s) for each of those

significant effects accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding:

1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which

mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment.

2. Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public

agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency.

3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including

considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers,

make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental

impact report.

As indicated above, Section 21002 requires an agency to “avoid or substantially lessen” significant

adverse environmental impacts. Thus, mitigation measures that “substantially lessen” significant

environmental impacts, even if not completely avoided, satisfy section 21002’s mandate. (Laurel Hills

Homeowners Assn. v. City Council (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 515, 521 [“CEQA does not mandate the choice

of the environmentally best feasible project if through the imposition of feasible mitigation measures alone

the appropriate public agency has reduced environmental damage from a project to an acceptable level”];

Las Virgenes Homeowners Fed., Inc. v. County of Los Angeles (1986) 177 Cal. App. 3d 300, 309 [“[t]here

6

is no requirement that adverse impacts of a project be avoided completely or reduced to a level of

insignificance . . . if such would render the project unfeasible”].)

While CEQA requires that lead agencies adopt feasible mitigation measures or alternatives to

substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental impacts, an agency need not adopt infeasible

mitigation measures or alternatives. (Pub. Res. Code § 21002.1(c) [if “economic, social, or other

conditions make it infeasible to mitigate one or more significant effects on the environment of a project,

the project may nonetheless be carried out or approved at the discretion of a public agency”]; see also

State CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(a) [an “EIR is not required to consider alternatives which are

infeasible”].) CEQA defines “feasible” to mean “capable of being accomplished in a successful manner

within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological

factors.” (Pub. Res. Code § 21061.1.) The State CEQA Guidelines add “legal” considerations as another

indicator of feasibility. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15364.) Project objectives also inform the

determination of “feasibility.” (Jones v. U.C. Regents (2010) 183 Cal. App. 4th 818, 828-829.)

“‘[F]easibility’ under CEQA encompasses ‘desirability’ to the extent that desirability is based on a

reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.” (City of

Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 401, 417; see also Sequoyah Hills Homeowners

Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 715.) “Broader considerations of policy thus come

into play when the decision making body is considering actual feasibility[.]” (Cal. Native Plant Soc’y v.

City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 957, 1000 (“Native Plant”); see also Pub. Res. Code §

21081(a)(3) [“economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations” may justify rejecting

mitigation and alternatives as infeasible] (emphasis added).)

Environmental impacts that are less than significant do not require the imposition of mitigation

measures. (Leonoff v. Monterey County Board of Supervisors (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1337, 1347.)

The California Supreme Court has stated, “[t]he wisdom of approving . . . any development project,

a delicate task which requires a balancing of interests, is necessarily left to the sound discretion of the

local officials and their constituents who are responsible for such decisions. The law as we interpret and

apply it simply requires that those decisions be informed, and therefore balanced.” (Citizens of Goleta

Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 576.) In addition, perfection in a project or a project’s

environmental alternatives is not required; rather, the requirement is that sufficient information be

produced “to permit a reasonable choice of alternatives so far as environmental aspects are concerned.”

Outside agencies (including courts) are not to “impose unreasonable extremes or to interject [themselves]

within the area of discretion as to the choice of the action to be taken.” (Residents Ad Hoc Stadium Com.

v. Board of Trustees (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 274, 287.)

C. Summary of Environmental Findings

At a regular meeting assembled on April 26, 2019, the Commission determined that, based on all

of the evidence presented, including but not limited to the EIR, written and oral testimony given at

meetings and hearings, the submission of testimony from the public, organizations and regulatory

agencies, and the whole of the administrative record, which is incorporated by reference herein, that all

environmental impacts associated with the Project are less than significant with the implementation of

mitigation measures set forth in the Final EIR.

No comments made in the public hearings conducted by the Commission or any additional

information submitted to the Commission has produced any substantial new information requiring

recirculation or additional environmental review of the Final EIR under CEQA because no new significant

7

environmental impacts were identified, no substantial increase in the severity of any environmental

impacts would occur, and no feasible Project mitigation measures or Project alternatives as defined in

State CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5 were rejected. Further, Alternative A2 is nearly identical to other

alternatives, with similar impacts, that were analyzed in the Draft EIR.

SECTION 2

FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL

RESOURCES NOT IMPACTED BY THE PROJECT

Consistent with Public Resources Code section 21002.1 and section 15128 of the State CEQA

Guidelines, the EIR focused its analysis on potentially significant impacts, and limited discussion of other

impacts for which it can be seen with certainty there is no potential for significant adverse environmental

impacts. State CEQA Guidelines section 15091 does not require specific findings to address

environmental effects that an EIR identifies as “no impact” or a “less than significant” impact.

Nevertheless, the Commission hereby finds that the Project would have no impact to the following

resource areas:

Agriculture and Forestry Resources

1. Threshold AG-1: Does the Project have the potential to convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,

or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non-agricultural use (IS, 2.; DEIR II-17)?

a. Impact AG-1: The Project would be located along the toe of slope and within the Santa Rosa

foothills and would not encroach into farmlands. Neither would the project adversely affect the

operations of the Coachella Canal or its terminal lake (Lake Cahuilla), which provides irrigation

water to the eastern portion of the Coachella Valley. There are no significant agricultural or

forestry resources on the property or in the vicinity. (IS.2.a.; DEIR II-17)

b. Supporting Explanation: There are no lands currently zoned for agricultural uses in the City of La

Quinta, the nearest agricultural lands being approximately two miles east of the Project planning

area. The planning area is designated as "Urban and Built-up Lands" and "Other Lands" on the

California Department of Conservation Farmland Maps. Because the proposed Project would not

impact agricultural or forestry lands, either directly or indirectly, no impacts will result from the

Project and no mitigation measures are required. (IS.2.a.; DEIR II-P)

2. Threshold AG-2: Would the Project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson

Act contract (IS.2; DEIR II-P)?

a. Impact AG-2: The Project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a

Williamson Act contract. No impact would occur. (IS.2.b; DEIR II-P)

b. Supporting Explanation: No land in the Project area or its vicinity is designated for agricultural

use or subject to a Williamson Act contract. The planning area is designated as “Urban and Built-

up Lands” and “Other Lands” on the California Department of Conservation Farmland Maps. No

impacts will result from the Project. (IS.2.b; DEIR II-P)

3. Threshold AG-3: Would the Project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to

their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use (IS.2; DEIR

II-P)?

8

a. Impact AG-3: The Project will not result in other changes to the existing environment that would

result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses. No impact will occur. (IS.2.c; DEIR

II-P)

b. Supporting Explanation: Portions of the Project will be in proximity to the Coachella Canal and

Lake Cahuilla which support agricultural activities in the eastern Coachella Valley. However,

the Project will not impact their operation or maintenance, or result in other changes to the

existing environment, such that conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses would result.

(IS.2.c; DEIR II-P)

Mineral and Energy Resources

1. Threshold MR-1: Would the Project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that

would be of value to the region and the residents of the state (IS.11; DEIR II-Q)?

a. Impact MR-1: The Project would be located along the toe of slope and within the Santa Rosa

foothills and would not encroach into any active or known mineral or energy resource. (IS.11.a;

DEIR II-Q)

b. Supporting Explanation: The Project area is designated for urban and open space land uses in

the La Quinta General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The project will not result in the loss of a

known mineral resource or resource recovery site, and therefore, no impacts to mineral resources

will occur. (IS.11.a; DEIR II-Q)

2. Threshold MR-2: Would the Project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral

resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan (IS.11;

DEIR II-Q)?

a. Impact MR-2: The Project would have no impact on a locally important mineral resource

recovery site. (IS.11.b; DEIR II-Q)

b. Supporting Explanation: Land in the Project area is designated for urban and open

space/conservation uses. No land in the Project area or its vicinity is delineated in local land use

plans as a locally important mineral resource recovery site. Land in the southerly portion of the

project area once operated as a gravel quarry; however, operations ceased many years ago, and

the land has been developed into a resort residential development called “The Quarry.” (IS.11.b;

DEIR II-Q)

Energy resource issues were evaluated in Section II-Q of the Draft EIR and included a discussion of finite

and renewable energy resources in the Project area. Indirect data on Project fuel consumption was derived

from the CalEEMOD air emissions model. Energy requirements are assumed to be limited to fossil fuels

to power vehicles, construction equipment and helicopter use; no grid-sources of electric power will be

used. Section II-Q concluded that the Project will not result in the loss of a known resource or resource

development site. It also concluded that the Project would not demand significant sources of energy and

will generate a de minimis demand for energy once construction is completed.

Population and Housing

9

1. Threshold PH-1: Would the Project induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly

(for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension

of roads or other infrastructure) (IS.13; DEIR II-R)?

a. Impact PH-1: The Project would have no growth-inducing effect, either directly or indirectly. Once

constructed, fence maintenance will be very limited and infrequent with no resulting increase in

population or housing demand. (IS.13.a; DEIR II-R)

b. Supporting Explanation: The Project does not propose new housing, will not attract new residents

to the area, and will not result in the construction of new roads or infrastructure that could induce

future population growth, such as water or sewer extensions. No adverse impacts to population or

housing will occur as a result of the Project. (IS.13.a; DEIR II-R)

2. Threshold PH-2: Would the Project displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating

the construction of replacement housing elsewhere (IS.13; DEIR II-R)?

a. Impact PH-2: No housing will be impacted, lost or displaced, and the Project will not create the

need for replacement housing. (IS.13.b; DEIR II-R)

b. Supporting Explanation: The Project will not result in the demolition of any housing or

displacement of residents. (IS.13.b; DEIR II-R)

3. Threshold PH-3: Would the Project displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the

construction of replacement housing elsewhere (IS.13; DEIR II-R)?

a. Impact PH-3: No people will be displaced and the project will not create the need for replacement

housing. (IS.13.c; DEIR II-R)

b. Supporting Explanation: The Project will not result in the displacement of residents. (IS.13.c;

DEIR II-R)

SECTION 3

FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL

IMPACTS FOUND TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT OR

MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT

The Commission hereby finds that the following potential environmental impacts of the Project

show the potential to occur as a consequence of the Project’s development. The following environmental

impacts associated with the Project are found to be less than significant or potentially significant but

avoided or reduced to levels of insignificance by the identified mitigation measures:

A. Land Use/Planning

1. Thresholds

LU-1: Will the Project physically divide an established community (IS.10.a; DEIR II-C, III-A;

FEIR 1.6.2.A)?

LU-2: Will the Project conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency

with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific

10

plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or

mitigating an environmental effect) (IS.10.b; DEIR II-C, III-A; FEIR 1.6.2.A) ?

LU-3: Will the Project conflict with an applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community

conservation plan? (IS.10.c; DEIR II-C, III-A; FEIR 1.6.2.A)

2. Impacts

The Project will not bisect, isolate or create isolated portions of any established community located

within or near the Project planning area. Within the four master planned communities that could

be potentially affected, the Project alignment largely follows the mountain-urban interface, which

separates upslope undeveloped open space from downslope urban development. The Project will

create a linear barrier that prevents PBS access from mountain slopes and alluvial fans to adjacent

urban development on the valley floor. Pedestrian gates will be placed at strategic locations along

the length of the fence to provide mountain access for emergency and recreational purposes. Where

the barrier crosses roads in Lake Cahuilla Recreation Area, vehicular gates will be provided.

The Project will not conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency

with jurisdiction over the Project and adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an

environmental effect. There will be no changes in land use or zoning designations, or other

applicable land use plan, policy or regulation.

Neither will the Project conflict with federal land management plans or regulations. The Project

will avoid conflicts with the Coachella Canal and the Coachella Canal Area Resource Management

Plan. CVCC shall secure a license agreement from US Bureau of Reclamation to cross

Reclamation lands.

Portions of Project could be within the California Desert Conservation Area Plan area. The barrier

is consistent with the plan’s PBS recovery strategy, which allows fencing to exclude PBS from

urban areas where there is a demonstrated problem. The BLM and CDFW coordinate all wildlife

management activities in BLM wilderness areas under the current BLM/CDFW MOU on

“Wildlife Management Activities in Wilderness” signed in 1997. Encroachment permits could be

required from BLM to the extent that the Project affects BLM facilities. Therefore, the Project will

not conflict with the provisions of the Desert Conservation Area Plan or other applicable land use

plan, policy or regulation.

Portions of the Project could be located within or on the boundaries of the Santa Rosa and San

Jacinto Mountains National Monument. The Project is consistent with the Management Plan’s

recovery strategy that allows fencing for the purpose of excluding sheep that are using urban lands

for food and water. BLM staff has indicated that the fence for this and other build alternatives may

be constructed along the National Monument boundary and also within the Monument if its

purpose is consistent with PBS conservation goals set forth in the Monument Plan and other

management goals. CVCC has consulted with the BLM on fence locations and issues of

consistency and compatibility of the PBS fence with the Monument. Encroachment permits could

be required from BLM to the extent that the Project affects BLM facilities. The Project will not

create significant conflicts or incompatibilities with the Monument Management Plan or other

applicable land use plan, policy or regulation.

The Project implements and is consistent with the requirements of the Coachella Valley Multiple

Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP), and no adverse impacts will occur. The Project

limits to the greatest extent practicable the amount of hillside habitat that may become inaccessible

to the sheep and maintains the quantitative and qualitative conservation goals of the SRSJM

Conservation Area in which portions of the Project are located. It is consistent with Section 8.2.4.1

Management Action #14, which requires the construction of a barrier when PBS are using artificial

11

food or water in an unfenced area adjacent to a Conservation Area. It is consistent with goals of

minimizing human-caused disturbances and edge effects to Core Habitat. The Project is also

consistent with the Peninsular Bighorn Sheep Recovery Plan’s Recommended Conservation

Guidelines, and no adverse impacts will occur. The Project supports the Recovery Plan’s goals of

managing habitat and alleviating threats to PBS, and it implements Task 1.2.1.1, which

recommends construction of a fence where PBS are using urban sources of food and water.

3. Mitigation

The Project will not require the implementation of specific mitigation measures, the Project itself

being a mitigation program. As a part of programmatic mitigation incorporated into the

CVMSHCP, the Project is required to comply with the CVMSHCP Land Use Adjacency

Guidelines. The Project implements the Land Use Adjacency Guideline described in Section 4.5.6,

which states: “Land uses adjacent to or within a Conservation Area shall incorporate barriers in

individual project designs to minimize unauthorized public access, domestic animal predation,

illegal trespass, or dumping in a Conservation Area. Such barriers may include native landscaping,

rocks/boulders, fencing, wall and/or signage.”

4. Residual Impacts

Residual environmental effects of the Project are expected to be positive or beneficial. The new

sheep barrier will implement established land use and habitat management plans and regulations,

and will affect mandated protection of a federal and state-listed species. No significant adverse

effect on land use compatibility will result from the development of the Project.

B. Traffic/Circulation

1. Thresholds

CIR-1: Will the project conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing

measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into

account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and

relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections,

streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? (IS.16.a;

DEIR II-D, III-B; FEIR 1.6.2.B)

CIR-2: Will the project conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including,

but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other

standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads

or highways? (IS.16.b; DEIR II-D, III-B; FEIR 1.6.2.B)

CIR-3: Will the project result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in

traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? (IS.16.c; DEIR

II-D, III-B; FEIR 1.6.2.B)

CIR-4: Will the project substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves

or dangerous intersection) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (IS.16.d;

CIR-5: Will the project result in inadequate emergency access? (IS.16.e; DEIR II-D, III-B; FEIR

1.6.2.B)

CIR-6: Will the project result in inadequate parking capacity? (IS.16.f; DEIR II-D, III-B; FEIR

1.6.2.B)

CIR-7: Will the project conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public

transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety

of such facilities? (IS.16.g; DEIR II-D, III-B; FEIR 1.6.2.B)

2. Impacts

12

The Project will not conflict with plans or policies pertaining to the performance of the circulation

system. It is located in a remote area that is geographically removed from roadways, no new access

roads or transportation facilities are proposed, and the Project will not permanently cross or

interfere with the use of golf cart paths, bicycle paths, or mass transit facilities. Project construction

will result in temporary, short-term traffic increases from trucks and other vehicles accessing the

Project area. Vehicle parking will occur on local roads or other areas in coordination with the City,

County (for Lake Cahuilla Recreation Area), and private golf course communities. No

construction-related traffic delays, closures, or detours are anticipated. The Project would generate

an average of 8 vehicle trips per construction day. Impacts will be less than significant.

Long-term maintenance will involve periodic fence inspections and repairs, which will occur

periodically and will involve one or two vehicles per inspection. The impacts of Project

construction and maintenance traffic on the existing roadway network will be negligible and will

not adversely impact existing roads or intersections, their operation, or levels of service. Impacts

will be less than significant.

The Project will have no impact on any congestion management program. It is not accessed by, or

in proximity to, roads designated in the local congestion management plan. No impacts will occur.

The Project will have no impact on long-term air traffic patterns or operations, and its effects

associated with helicopter lift operations will cease with completion of the fence. Two helipad

sites have been identified and have previously been approved for the staging of helicopter flights.

Aircraft operations in the vicinity of the Project are limited by steep mountainous terrain.

Helicopter lift operations shall be conducted by fully licensed and certified pilots and aircraft and

will follow pre-established flight paths as required (see DEIR Section III-H: Noise). Therefore,

helicopter operations that may be associated with the Project will not result in a substantial increase

in air traffic safety risks. The Project site is approximately 5 miles from the nearest airport and will

not affect airport access roads. It will not generate lighting, high-rise structures, or other potentially

hazardous features that could impact air operations.

The delivery of construction supplies will be primarily accomplished by a combination of trucks

and carts using local roads and perhaps golf cart paths. However, depending on slope steepness

and rocky terrain, several helicopter drops of supplies may be necessary over the course of

construction. It was estimated that a maximum of 10 helicopter trips would occur on any given

construction day. Actual helicopter use will vary from day to day, with periods when no flights are

required to supply the Project. Many portions of the Project will be accessible by foot and/or cart

and will not require any helicopter support. It is anticipated that flights would be based at

Jacqueline Cochran Regional Airport and will comply with applicable FAA and other regulations.

Impacts to air traffic volumes and area airport operations will be less than significant.

The Project site is in a relatively isolated area that is geographically removed from the circulation

network. It will not result in design features or incompatible uses that could increase traffic and

circulation hazards. No adverse impacts will occur.

The Project will prevent PBS from accessing local roads in the golf course communities, which

will reduce potential hazards to humans and PBS associated with auto collisions. The Project will

result in positive benefits in this regard.

Where the fence is in proximity to the Coachella Canal, it is located in such a manner that it does

not constrain CVWD vehicles from accessing canal facilities or turning around.

13

The Project site is geographically isolated and removed from the existing road network and is not

part of an emergency response or evacuation plan. The Project will, however, create a physical

barrier between downslope development and upslope mountains, and could restrict emergency

personnel from accessing the mountains for rescues, fire suppression, or other emergencies (also

refer to DEIR Section III-J, Public Services/Utilities – Fire Protection). Gates will be installed at

regular intervals along the fence alignment to allow pedestrian and in some cases vehicular access,

and to continue to facilitate access by emergency personnel. No significant adverse impacts will

occur.

The Project will not conflict with policies or plans pertaining to public transit or bicycle facilities

given that it is not accessed by, or in proximity to, existing or proposed public transit or bicycle

routes.

The Project could potentially cross the Boo Hoof/ Cove-to-Lake hiking trail. Pedestrian/equestrian

gates will be installed to provide continued access and mitigate impacts to less than significant

levels. No significant adverse impacts will occur.

3. Mitigation

Based upon the traffic and circulation analysis conducted for this project, Project impacts are

expected to be less than significant without mitigation.

4. Residual Impacts

Residual environmental effects of the Project are limited to the potential need for

pedestrian/equestrian gates on one or two local trails that may be crossed by the sheep barrier.

These will pose a very minimal inconvenience to hikers and riders. No significant adverse effect

on transportation systems or traffic will result from the development of the Project.

C. Geology and Soils

1. Thresholds

GEO-1: Will the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,

including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo

Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area of based on

other substantial evidence of a known fault?

ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?

iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?

iv) Landslides?

(IS.6.a; DEIR II-E, III-C; FEIR 1.6.2.C)

GEO-2: Will the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (IS.6.b; DEIR II-

E, III-C; FEIR 1.6.2.C)

GEO-3: Will the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become

unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral

spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? (IS.6.c; DEIR II-E, III-C; FEIR 1.6.2.C)

GEO-: Will the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal

of wastewater? (IS.6.d; DEIR II-E, III-C; FEIR 1.6.2.C)

2. Impacts

14

The Project is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and there are no known

active or potentially active faults on site or within the immediate vicinity. The nearest fault to the

Project area is the San Andreas Fault, approximately ±8.5 miles to the northeast. There will be no

impacts associated with fault rupture on the Project site.

The San Andreas and San Jacinto Faults are capable of generating a magnitude 7.4 quake. Given

their proximity to the subject site, moderate to severe ground shaking is considered the primary

geologic hazard affecting the Project area. While strong seismic ground shaking could induce

rockfalls upslope of and that impinge upon the fence and require repairs, the Project will not result

in the construction of habitable structures that expose people or structures to substantial adverse

effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death. Therefore, impacts from seismic ground shaking

will be less than significant.

The 2035 La Quinta General Plan indicates the Project is located in an area with no liquefaction

susceptibility. However, portions of the Project adjacent to PGA West include an area of

“moderate” liquefaction susceptibility due to a combination of youthful, unconsolidated sediments

and a historically shallow groundwater table that is 30 to 50 feet below the ground surface. This

subsidence area occurs further out on the valley floor and does not affect the Project. Therefore,

the Project will not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including

the risk of loss, injury, or death as a result of seismically-induced or related ground failure,

including liquefaction. No impact will occur.

The Project crosses areas with relatively steep and rugged slopes trending roughly north-south and

comprising the “peninsula” portion of the planning area. Portions of the Project are proposed

within the foothills and along the toe of slope of the Santa Rosa Mountains. The Project is not

located within a landslide hazard area. Along portions of the Project, the barrier would be placed

at or near the point of contact of eroded soils and bedrock, a zone that is susceptible to soil

slumping and block slides, and to rock falls. Strong seismic groundshaking could result in slope

instability and induce rockfalls upslope of the Project and impinge upon the fence and require

repairs. However, the Project will not expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects,

including the risk of loss, injury, or death. Therefore, impacts from landslides will be less than

significant.

The Project is located in an area with Wind Erosion Hazard zones ranging from none to very high,

with non-erosive areas comprised of bedrock and coarse gravels that comprise most of the Project

site. Along the toe of slope and on some of the alluvial fans the potential for wind erosion ranges

from low to very high. The Project will result in very limited ground disturbance that could

subsequently be eroded by strong winds. Ground disturbance will be limited to the digging of

postholes and incidental disturbance from construction crew foot travel. The Project will not result

in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil and will not expose people or structures to potential

substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death from the creation of such

conditions.

The Project will not require mass grading, excavation, blasting of bedrock, or other ground surface

disturbances that would cause soils or geologic units to become unstable. Liquefaction

susceptibility in most of the Project area is considered low. Potential impacts associated with

landslides are described above and in the Project EIR. Impacts will be less than significant.

Project soils are not expansive. For that reason, the Project will not be located on expansive soil

and will not create substantial associated risks to life or property. The Project will not result in the

15

construction of any buildings, structures, or major utility improvements that could sustain

significant damage or pose significant human risks associated with settlement, and project-related

impacts are expected to be less than significant.

The Project will not require connection to the sewer system or construction of a septic system. No

impacts associated with soils or wastewater disposal systems will occur.

3. Mitigation

The Project will not expose people or structures to any substantial effects associated with

earthquake fault-related ground rupture, strong ground shaking, soil erosion or stability, slope

stability or landslides, or other geotechnical conditions. Therefore, no mitigation measures are

required.

4. Residual Impacts

There will be no or few residual effects associated with the Project and geotechnical conditions on

the Project site. Occasional need for fence repair due to falling rock is expected to be limited and

will have no adverse effect on people, property or the environment.

D. Hydrology

1. Thresholds

HYD-1: Will the project violate any water quality standards or wastewater discharge

requirements? (IS.9.a; DEIR II-F, II-G, III-D; FEIR 1.6.2.D)

HYD-2: Will the project 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 (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing

nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned

uses for which permits have been granted)? (IS.9.b; DEIR II-F, II-G, III-D; FEIR 1.6.2.D)

HYD-3: Will the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,

including through the alteration of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in

substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? (IS.9.c; DEIR II-F, II-G, III-D; FEIR

1.6.2.D)

HYD-4: Will the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,

including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially

increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding

on- or off-site? (IS.9.d; DEIR II-F, II-G, III-D; FEIR 1.6.2.D)

HYD-5: Will the project create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of

existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional

sources of polluted runoff? (IS.9.e; DEIR II-F, II-G, III-D; FEIR 1.6.2.D)

HYD-6: Will the project otherwise substantially degrade water quality? (IS.9.f; DEIR II-F, II-G,

III-D; FEIR 1.6.2.D)

HYD-7: Will the project place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal

Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation

map? (IS.9.g; DEIR II-F, II-G, III-D; FEIR 1.6.2.D)

HYD-8: Will the project place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede

or redirect flood flows? (IS.9.h; DEIR II-F, II-G, III-D; FEIR 1.6.2.D)

HYD-9: Will the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death

involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? (IS.9.i;

DEIR II-F, II-G, III-D; FEIR 1.6.2.D)

16

HYD-10: Will the project result in inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? (IS.9.j; DEIR II-

F, II-G, III-D; FEIR 1.6.2.D)

2. Impacts

The sheep exclusion fence will occur primarily along and in proximity to the toe of slope of the

planning area foothills. Where the fence crosses drainages, fence construction will be limited to

digging one-foot by two-foot deep post-holes and anchoring fence posts in concrete. BMPs are an

integral part of this project and include limiting the length of drainage encroachments, optimized

use of existing entrained channels for the location of hinged flapper gates, and minimizing excess

material (cut) and use of same as a sacrificial erosion. In light of the methods to be used, fence

construction will not result in any impact to surface or groundwater water quality, and there will

be no wastewater discharge. Hinged flapper gates will also be across incised drainages to ensure

that larger flows and associated debris loads can pass through the fence. There will be no other

permanent disturbance within Project area drainages and the proposed improvements will not

result in any wastewater discharge or violate any water quality standard. Therefore, the Project

would not violate any water quality standards or wastewater discharge requirements, and impacts

on water quality will be less than significant.

The Project will require approximately 199,319 gallons of water (0.61 acre-feet) of water only

during the construction phase, which would be temporary and would not substantially deplete

groundwater supplies. Access to construction water will be from metered CVWD hydrants located

in the project vicinity and sourced from groundwater. Impacts will be less than significant.

The Project crosses several drainages that include channelized streams, braided stream flows and

sheet flows, and the installation of hinged flapper gates will allow larger flows to pass through the

barrier. The Project will not result in the alteration of any existing drainages or drainage patterns,

it will not alter the course of any of the potentially affected streams, and it is not expected to result

in any substantial erosion or siltation either within or outside the Project area. Therefore, in this

regard, impacts to streams and drainages will be less than significant. The Project will not result

in the alteration of any existing drainages or drainage patterns, it will not alter the course of any of

the potentially affected streams, nor will it result in an increase in stormwater runoff or flooding

on- or off-site. Therefore, impacts to streams and drainages, and the potential for increased

flooding, will be less than significant.

The Project would not exceed the capacity of stormwater drainage systems or be a source of

polluted runoff. Therefore, in this regard, there will be no impact.

The construction method will involve the use of in-hole dry concrete mix, which precludes the

possible discharge of waste water that could affect surface or groundwater from this source. At

Project staging areas, BMPs will preclude releases or discharges that could substantially degrade

surface or groundwater quality. Therefore, the Project will not substantially degrade local surface

or groundwater and the impact will be less than significant.

The Project consists of an 8-foot high fence along and in proximity to the toe of slope of the Santa

Rosa Mountains. The Project does not involve nor would it result in placing housing within a 100-

year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazards Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate

Map, or other flood hazard delineation map. No impacts in this regard would result.

There are a few areas in the planning area designated as “A” and “AO” zones (100-year flood

areas). These are primarily associated with developed stormwater detention basins, including those

within the Tradition and Quarry developments. A small sliver of flood zone along the southwest

edge of Lake Cahuilla Park and crossing the proposed fence alignment is designated AO; this sliver

17

is associated with the stormwater impound area behind Dike 2.

The Project barrier will be comprised of minimum 2.25-inch openings and hinged flapper gates in

drainages to ensure that larger flows and associated debris loads can pass through. Thus, the Project

will not result in the impedance or redirection of flood flows. There will be no other structures

within Project area drainages. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact in

impeding or redirecting storm flows.

Lake Cahuilla and USBR Dike 2, both within the Project planning area, store canal water and

stormwater runoff, respectively. The fence will also be upslope or upstream of Lake Cahuilla and

the Dike 2 impound area. Given the nature of the Project and how it will be constructed (with open

fence fabric and hinged flapper gates), the Project would not expose people or structures to a

significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of a levee

or dam.

In addition to Lake Cahuilla and USBR Dike 2, CVWD has four elevated water storage reservoirs

within the project planning area. The Project will not affect these stormwater and domestic water

storages, and will not expose people or structures to seiche, tsunami, or mudflows. Therefore, the

Project will not expose people or structures to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflows, and no

impact will occur in this regard.

3. Mitigation

The Project will not impact local and regional hydrology, or surface and groundwater quality.

Programmatic best management practices have been incorporated into the Project's design.

Therefore, no mitigation measures are required.

4. Residual Impacts

There will be no or few residual effects associated with the Project and hydraulic and hydrologic

conditions on the Project site. Occasional need for fence repair due to high-volume storm runoff

will be limited and will have no adverse effect on people, property or the environment.

E. Biological Resources

1. Thresholds

BIO-1: Will the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat

modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species

in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of

Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (IS.4.a; DEIR II-H, III-E; FEIR

1.6.2.E)

BIO-2: Will the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive

natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by

the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

(IS.4.b; DEIR II-H, III-E; FEIR 1.6.2.E)

BIO-3: Will the project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as

defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh,

vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or

other means? (IS.4.c; DEIR II-H, III-E; FEIR 1.6.2.E)

BIO-4: Will the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or

migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife

corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (IS.4.d; DEIR II-H, III-E;

FEIR 1.6.2.E)

18

BIO-5: Will the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protection biological

resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (IS.4.e; DEIR II-H, III-E;

FEIR 1.6.2.E)

BIO-6: Will the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,

Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat

conservation plan? (IS.4.f; DEIR II-H, III-E; FEIR 1.6.2.E)

2. Impacts

The need and mandate for the Project was established in the 2000 Peninsular Bighorn Sheep

Recovery Plan and later in the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan. The

implementation of this Project has been prompted by the high sheep mortalities that have occurred

in the Project urban interface area.

Most of the Project planning area is designated as critical habitat for PBS. The Project would

minimize the amount of isolated PBS habitat, preventing sheep access to the smallest amount of

habitat feasible. In the vicinity of the Coachella Canal and PGA West, the Project isolates sheep

from these attractive nuisances and places steep intervening terrain between sheep and the canal

and golf course. The Project will not modify the topographical or biological features of PBS habitat

and will result in isolation of a total of 242± acres. No federally designated "critical habitat" will

be affected by the Project.

The Project will also limit potential impacts to burrowing owl (California Species of Concern),

avoiding much of the identified potential habitat for this species. Other sensitive species that may

occur in the planning area include desert tortoise and red-diamond rattlesnake. The probable

occurrence of all of these species in the Project planning area is considered to be low to moderate.

Therefore, there is some, if limited, potential for significant impacts to these species. Avoidance

of impacts to these species will be accomplished if they are encountered during project

construction through adherence to avoidance, minimization and mitigation measures set forth in

the EIR. (EIR III-E).

There are no riparian habitat areas, nor are there any special status natural communities within the

planning area. Therefore, the Project will have no substantial or significant adverse impact on

riparian habitat or any other sensitive natural community. Beyond preventing PBS access to urban

lands and land uses, the Project will not interfere substantially with the movement of any other

native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species. The Project will not affect wildlife movement

along established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native

wildlife nursery sites.

The Project is consistent with La Quinta General Plan goals and policies and is meant to preserve

native biological resources and their habitat. The Project also continues to implement the

CVMSHCP, is based on species-specific surveys, provides for pre-construction surveys and

compliance with the MBTA, and buffers sensitive biological resources from urban development.

Based upon the need to respond to existing adverse conditions affecting PBS, and because it is

consistent with City of La Quinta General Plan policies, the Project will not conflict with any local

policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. The purpose of this Project is to bring the

management and protection of PBS into harmony with the referenced conservation plans. The

Project will not conflict with these conservation plans.

3. Mitigation

The Project has limited potential to significantly impact biological resources. The following

mitigation measures set forth in the Draft EIR will ensure that impacts are less than significant. In

19

addition to participation in the CVMSHCP, which is designed to mitigate potential Project impacts

to covered special-status biological resources, the following mitigation measures will avoid and

minimize impacts to special-status biological resources.

BIO-1 Prior to the initiation of Project construction, CVCC and representatives of the Wildlife

Agencies (CDFW and USFWS) and property owners shall walk and finalize the

Alternative A(2) alignment, which shall also be staked at that time to ensure that the

alignment is fixed in the field.

BIO-2 Biological monitoring shall be conducted of all Project-related disturbances that have the

potential to affect special-status biological resources. The biological monitor shall be

qualified in the identification of the special-status biological resources potentially

occurring along the selected alignment and would have the authority to contact the resource

agencies (i.e., USFWS, CDFW, CVCC, etc.) should special-status biological resources be

encountered during barrier installation and to temporarily halt any and all Project-related

activities that threaten special-status resources in order to avoid and/or minimize impacts.

Examples include: bighorn sheep, desert tortoises, flat-tailed horned lizard, burrowing owl,

active prairie falcon nests (or any other bird nests) observed in the immediate vicinity of

the alignment and that might be affected.

BIO-3 Impact avoidance and/or minimization measures that shall be implemented by the

biological monitor include:

A. Daily preconstruction clearance surveys of the portions of the alignment proposed

for immediate installation. The biological monitor shall conduct preconstruction

clearance surveys immediately prior (i.e., the morning of and/or the day prior) to

commencement of daily operations to detect special-status biological resources

present within the current work zone. Any/all special-status biological resources

found in the immediate vicinity would be marked/mapped with a handheld GPS,

flagged in the field for avoidance and monitored during construction to ensure that

impacts to these resources are avoided and/or minimized to the greatest extent

possible.

B. The monitor may issue a temporary stop work order to allow special-status fauna

(i.e., desert tortoise, Coachella Valley round-tailed ground squirrel, PBS, etc.) to

move away from the active work zone on their own accord without interference

from Project personnel.

C. Physical capture, temporary handling and immediate relocation of special-status

fauna if appropriate (i.e., desert tortoise, red-diamond rattlesnake, etc.) by an

individual with the appropriate permits and experience to do so, after receipt of

verbal authorization from respective resource agencies.

D. Implementation of a Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) to

inform Project personnel working in the field of the potential presence of special-

status biological resources along the alignment. The WEAP would include

photographs, descriptions, conservation status, impact avoidance and minimization

measures proposed, and penalties associated with unauthorized impacts to the

special-status species potentially occurring along the alignment. Project personnel

would be required to attend the WEAP and sign an acknowledgment of attendance

and agreement to comply with the measures outlined in the WEAP, CVMSHCP

and Project permit requirements.

E. Trash containment and proper disposal to avoid attracting scavengers and

predators.

20

BIO-4 In conformance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and to avoid impacts to nesting

migratory birds by project activities, the project proponent shall:

A. Avoid project-related disturbance during the nesting season (generally from

January 15 through July 31 for the Coachella Valley) or conduct nesting bird

surveys by a qualified ornithologist or biologist immediately prior to site

disturbance during the nesting season.

B. In the event active nests are found, exclusionary fencing shall be placed 200 feet

around the nest until such time as nestlings have fledged. Nests of raptors and

burrowing owls shall be provided a 500-foot buffer.

Northern Red-Diamond Rattlesnake and Flat-tailed Horned Lizard

Although project-related impacts to these species (if any) would not likely be considered

significant under CEQA, the following measures are recommended to ensure that impacts to both

species are less than significant.

BIO-5 Upon the initiation of construction, biological monitoring, daily preconstruction clearance

surveys, trash control and abatement shall be conducted to avoid attracting and

supplementing potential predators to help avoid and minimize project-related impacts (i.e.,

direct mortality or injury).

BIO-6 If these species are found along the fence alignment, the biological monitor shall have the

authority to temporarily halt project-related activities in the immediate vicinity to allow the

species to vacate the area and avoid Project impacts. If these species do not vacate the

immediate vicinity on their own accord, the biological monitor would have the authority

to physically capture, temporarily handle and relocate individual animals to nearby areas

outside of the Project footprint (with regulatory agency concurrence). The biological

monitor shall be trained and qualified in the handling and transport of venomous snakes.

Burrowing Owl

As noted above, the project owl surveys identified three sites for potential burrowing owl

occupancy although no sign of use to date was found. These sites offer opportunities for burrowing

owls to begin using the areas between the time of the field survey and project construction,

although the lack of evidence of use indicates that the probability of occupancy within this time

frame is low. Nonetheless, the following avoidance and minimization measures will ensure that

impacts to burrowing owl are less than significant.

BIO-7 In order to ensure that impacts to burrowing owl are less than significant, at least 14 days

before (in accordance with the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation [CDFW 2012])

and not more than 30 days before the commencement of construction, pre-construction owl

survey shall be conducted for the three potential burrow sites identified in the burrowing

owl report, as set forth as follows:

1. CVCC shall conduct pre-construction burrow searches and burrowing owl surveys

at Habitat Sites 1, 2 and 3, as shown on Figure 1 of the owl report (see Appendix

B.3).

2. A final burrowing owl survey shall be conducted at the cited locations within 24

hours of the initiation of ground disturbance activities in accordance with the

CDFW 2012 protocol. If no burrowing owls are detected during those surveys,

implementation of ground disturbance activities may proceed without further

consideration of this species, assuming there is no lapse between the surveys and

construction because, as the protocol states, “time lapses between Project activities

21

trigger subsequent take avoidance surveys including but not limited to a final

survey conducted within 24 hours prior to ground disturbance."

3. If burrowing owls are detected during the take avoidance surveys, avoidance and

minimization measures shall be required and the need for mitigation for

unavoidable impacts triggered. Avoidance and minimization measures include:

establishing a buffer zone, installing a visual barrier, implementing burrow

exclusion and/or closure techniques, in conformance with CDFW protocol.

Bighorn Sheep

While the intent of Project is to protect the sheep from urban hazards, the Project fence alignment

does result in some (242± acres) reduction in habitat that will be accessible by sheep. In addition

to the loss of habitat, the implementation of the Project also has the potential to harm sheep if not

conducted in a proper manner. Therefore, the following avoidance and minimization measures

shall be implemented to ensure that sheep are not significantly impacted during fence construction.

BIO-8 Prior to the initiation of fence construction, CVCC and the Wildlife Agencies shall develop

and implement a strategic construction plan that anticipates PBS response to this activity

and provides for control and management in coordination with potentially affected property

owners. This measure will ensure PBS are kept on the proper side of the barrier and that

impacts to PBS during construction are minimized.

BIO-9 The final design and alignment selection shall identify locations for entry gates that provide

access necessary to retrieve PBS on the wrong side of the fence, to maintain the fence and

to address other issues within the area bounded by the fence.

BIO-10 Alternative water sources upslope of the fenced areas shall be provided for bighorn sheep

in consultation with CDFW, USFWS, CVWD and other landowners. It may be possible to

provide water sources in view of the golf courses that would allow the public to see bighorn

sheep up on the ridgelines but keep them away from urban areas.

BIO-11 CVCC shall consult and coordinate with the USFWS and CDFW to ensure that the fence

is constructed during those times of the year that minimize stress to PBS.

BIO-12 The CVCC shall mitigate for the loss of PBS access to designated Peninsular bighorn

sheep habitat resulting from the implementation of the barrier through a Transfer of

Conservation Objectives consistent with the requirements of the CVMSHCP and in

accordance with Section 11.7 of the CVMSHCP Implementing Agreement.

BIO-13: Prior to the completion of fence construction, CVCC and its partner agencies shall

prepare a post-construction PBS monitoring plan for this portion of Recovery Region 3

that will provide for on-going evaluation of bighorn sheep movements and population

effects associated with the fence.

BIO-14: Prior to fence construction, CVCC shall confer and coordinate with the wildlife agencies,

Bighorn Institute, property owners and/or managers, and other parties, as appropriate, to

develop and implement a post-construction strategic management plan that addresses:

1) Herding of PBS that become entrapped on the urban side of the fence, including

establishment of a procedural process, methods of herding bighorn sheep,

qualifications and availability of personnel, timelines for execution, funding, and

methods to minimize disturbance to bighorn sheep,

22

2) Ongoing fence inspection and maintenance, including identification of responsible

parties, timelines, funding, access, and emergency plans for repair or hazing should

PBS breach the fence.

4. Residual Impacts

While the intent of the Project is to protect bighorn sheep, there may be some limited impact on

wildlife movement of other larger mammals, such as coyote, bobcat, and mountain lion. The height

of the fence and small gaps within it will restrict their ability to cross from one side of the fence to

the other. However, the Project area does not serve as a migratory corridor for these species, and

their movement between upslope and downslope lands in the Project area is not notable. Some

individuals may be capable of climbing above or jumping over the fence to gain access that cannot

be achieved by PBS. The Project will also serve to keep wildlife in natural habitat and away from

hazards associated with the urban interface. The movement of smaller species, such as ground

squirrels, birds, and reptiles will be restricted to a lesser extent due to the gaps and permeability of

the fence that will allow them to cross the alignment largely unrestricted. Any residual impacts to

biological resources will be de minimis.

F. Cultural (and Tribal) Resources

1. Thresholds

CUL-1: Will the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical

resources as defined in §15064.5? (IS.5.a; DEIR II-I, III-F; FEIR 1.6.2.F)

CUL-2: Will the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an

archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? (IS.5.b; DEIR II-I, III-F; FEIR 1.6.2.F)

CUL-3: Will the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or

unique geologic feature? (IS.5.c; DEIR II-I, III-F; FEIR 1.6.2.F)

CUL-4: Will the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal

cemeteries? (IS.5.d; DEIR II-I, III-F; FEIR 1.6.2.F)

2. Impacts

The Project area includes five historical resource sites identified in the Project EIR that occur

along, within or in proximity of the barrier. The Project could have a potentially significant impact

on historic resources. Therefore, due to the overall sensitivity of the sites to harbor sensitive

cultural resources, construction monitoring in those areas where historic resources have been

identified along the Area of Potential Effect (APE) is set forth as a mitigation measure. In the event

sensitive cultural resources are encountered that cannot be avoided, mitigation measures will

ensure that any impacts are reduced to a level that is less than significant.

The Project EIR identified seven archaeological sites and two isolates previously recorded within,

partially within, or adjacent to the APE, five of which were found to remain present, at least

partially. The other two sites and the two isolates could not be found at their recorded locations

and are presumed to have been destroyed. Three sites appear to be eligible for listing in the

National Register of Historic Places and the California Register of Historical Resources, and thus

meet the definitions of “historic properties” under Section 106 and “historical resources” under

CEQA. Any physical impact on these sites by the Project that would compromise their integrity

would constitute an adverse effect on “historic properties” and “a substantial adverse change” in

the significance of “historical resources.” Potential Project impacts to each of these resources are

discussed at length in the Project EIR.

There are few areas in the planning area with undisturbed soils that could bear fossil remains

23

associated with lacustrine deposits; they are limited to lands north of Lake Cahuilla, where water

reservoirs and a shooting range have been constructed. The Project would pass through an area of

previous disturbance where encountering sensitive fossil remains is unlikely. Nevertheless,

although the potential is low, the Project could have a potentially significant impact on

paleontological resources. Therefore, in the event sensitive paleontological resources are

encountered during construction, potentially significant impacts will be mitigated through the

application of mitigation measures set forth in the Project EIR. There are no unique geological

features within the Project planning area. The steep, rocky slopes of the Santa Rosa Mountains

foothills are typical of those throughout the northern and western margins of the Coachella Valley,

where steep terrain rises rapidly above the valley floor. The Project would place the fence barrier

along or in proximity to the toe-of-slope of these hillsides, would have a low visual impact and

would not directly or indirectly destroy or otherwise adversely affect these geological resources.

Pre-historic human cremation remains have been identified in the Project vicinity but not in

proximity to the Project area. Cultural resource surveys conducted for the Project found no human

remains or evidence of cremation. Much of the Project planning area has been previously

disturbed, and some cultural resources have also been disturbed and or have been inadvertently

destroyed. There is no evidence of human remains within the Project area and the potential for the

disturbance of such remains during construction is low. Nevertheless, mitigation measures are

provided that complement recommended construction monitoring that allow for the halting of

construction activities at locations where such remains may be uncovered. In the event human

remains are encountered, potentially significant impacts will be mitigated through the application

of mitigation measures set forth in the Project EIR.

Impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources

Literature searches and field surveys were conducted for the Project, and a wide range of previous

surveys and reports were reviewed. Consultation was also conducted with the Native American

Heritage Commission (NAHC) and a written request was submitted for a records search in the

commission’s sacred lands file. The Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians and the Torres

Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians were notified of the archaeological field surveys during 2016

and were invited to participate. A total of 19 representatives of 11 local tribes were contacted both

in writing and by telephone for additional information on potential Native American cultural

resources that may be present in and near the APE.

In compliance with AB 52, CVCC provided the tribal representative for both of the aforementioned

tribes with formal notification of the decision to undertake the Project and the opportunity for

consultation. Both tribes requested consultation. In response, CVCC provided both tribes with

cultural resources information (as requested), consulted with the tribal representatives, and has

continued to coordinate and consult with the tribal representatives with respect to cultural

resources. Input from the tribes was incorporated into the Project EIR.

The Project cultural resource report identified resource sites both listed and eligible for listing

under the California Register of Historical Resources, as cited above. Among those occurring in

proximity to the Project, three appear to be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic

Places and the California Register of Historical Resources, and thus meet the definitions of

“historic properties” under Section 106 and “historical resources” under CEQA. Any physical

impact on these sites by the Project that would compromise their integrity would constitute an

adverse effect on “historic properties” and “a substantial adverse change” in the significance of

“historical resources.” Potential Project impacts to each under the Project are described above.

24

Therefore, based upon the substantial evidence presented herein and in referenced technical reports

and pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the

Project could have a potentially significant adverse impact on Tribal cultural resources, including

a site, feature, place, cultural landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to the local

Tribes. The implementation of mitigation measures set forth in the Project EIR will ensure that

impacts to these resources is less than significant.

3. Mitigation Measures

Project design and mitigation measures will avoid and minimize impacts to cultural resources

occurring along the Project alignment. The final Project alignment will be staked in the field in

conjunction with concurrent field surveys/monitors to ensure that potentially significant impacts

to resources are avoided or minimized. Given that potentially significant impacts could occur, the

following measures shall be implemented to ensure that impacts to cultural resources are less than

significant.

CUL-1 Project impacts to Sites 33-024893, 33-024894 and 33-002826 could be potentially

significant, given the substantial archaeological discoveries in and near the APE.

Therefore, archaeological monitoring shall be implemented during ground-disturbing

activities in the area of these sites in coordination with the Agua Caliente Band of

Cahuilla Indians and the Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians. The monitor shall be

authorized to stop ground disturbance or other construction activities in proximity to

potential resources, and to initiate data recovery excavations and/or detailed recordation

of archaeological features before construction can resume at this location.

CUL-2 In order to avoid impacts to Site 33-000626, the Project fence alignment in this area shall

remain outside or at most on the edge of this site. An archaeological monitor shall be

present when the final alignment is determined, and the fence constructed in this area.

CUL-3 To avoid impacts to Site 33-002823, the Project fence alignment in this area shall avoid

and remain outside of this site. An archaeological monitor shall be present when the final

alignment is determined, and the fence constructed in this area. If physical impacts on

this site cannot be avoided, a Phase II survey, data recovery excavations and/or detailed

recordation of archaeological features, will be required and documentation completed

before construction can begin in this location.

CUL-4 Although the potential for significant impacts to Site 33-002826 is low, archaeological

monitoring shall be implemented during ground-disturbing activities in the area of this

site in coordination with the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians and the Torres

Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians. The monitor shall be authorized to stop ground

disturbance or other construction activities in proximity to potential resources, and to

initiate data recovery excavations and/or detailed recordation of archaeological features

before construction can resume at this location.

CUL-5 To avoid impacts to Site 33-002827, the proposed Project alignment in this area shall

avoid this site. An archaeological monitor shall be present when the final alignment is

determined, and the fence constructed in this area. If physical impacts on this site cannot

be avoided, a Phase II survey, data recovery excavations and/or detailed recordation of

archaeological features, will be required and documentation completed before

construction can begin in this location.

25

CUL-6 Should unknown archeological or tribal materials become unearthed, the qualified

archeologist monitoring construction shall prepare a findings report summarizing the

methods and results of the monitoring program, including an itemized inventory and a

detailed analysis of recovered artifacts upon completion of the field and laboratory work.

The report shall include an interpretation of the cultural activities represented by the

artifacts and a discussion of the significance of all archaeological or tribal finds. The

submittal of the report to the CVCC and appropriate responsible agencies, along with

final curation of the recovered artifacts, will signify completion of the monitoring

program and, barring unexpected findings of extraordinary significance, the mitigation

of potential project impacts on cultural and tribal resources.

CUL-7 Should buried human remains be discovered during project construction, in accordance

with State law, the County coroner shall be contacted. If the remains are determined to

be of Native American heritage, the Native American Heritage Commission and the

appropriate local Native American Tribe shall be contacted to determine the Most Likely

Descendant (MLD). CVCC shall work with the designated MLD to determine the final

disposition of the remains.

CUL-8 To avoid impacts to Site 33-019788, the proposed Project alignment in this area shall be

moved downslope to avoid this site, hugging the existing cart path at this location. An

archaeological monitor shall be present when the final alignment is determined, and the

fence constructed in this area.

CUL-9 In the unlikely event paleontological resources are encountered, the cultural resources

monitor shall, upon discovery of any fossils, quickly salvage them as they are unearthed

to avoid construction delays. The monitor shall remove samples of sediments that are

likely to contain the remains of small fossil invertebrates and vertebrates. The monitor

shall have the authority to temporarily halt or divert grading and excavation equipment

to allow for removal of abundant or large specimens.

4. Residual Impacts

With the implementation of mitigation measures set forth above and in the Project EIR, no new

significant impacts to historic or archaeological resources will result from the Project. There will

be no or very limited residual impacts to the historic, cultural or paleontological resources. No loss

of such resources is expected to result from the construction of Project.

G. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases (GHGs)

1. Thresholds

Air Quality Thresholds:

AQ-1: Will the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality

plan? (IS.3.a; DEIR II-J, III-G; FEIR 1.6.2.G)

AQ-2: Will the project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing

or projected air quality violation? (IS.3.b; DEIR II-J, III-G; FEIR 1.6.2.G)

AQ-3: Will the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant

for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state

ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative

thresholds for ozone precursors)? (IS.3.c; DEIR II-J, III-G; FEIR 1.6.2.G)

AQ-4: Will the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?

(IS.3.d; DEIR II-J, III-G; FEIR 1.6.2.G)

26

AQ-5: Will the project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?

(IS.3.e; DEIR II-J, III-G; FEIR 1.6.2.G)

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Thresholds:

GHG-1: Will the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may

have a significant impact on the environment? (IS.7.a; DEIR II-J, III-G; FEIR 1.6.2.G)

GHG-2: Will the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the

purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? (IS.7.b; DEIR II-J, III-G; FEIR

1.6.2.G)

2. Impacts

Air Quality – Criteria Pollutant Impacts

The Project will involve field surveying, staking, and fence construction. Vehicle emissions will

be generated by workers’ personal vehicles, trucks delivering fence materials, and helicopters.

Workers’ personal vehicles and trucks delivering materials will access the Project area using

existing roads, and park at preapproved staging areas or on existing roads. Most roads in the Project

area are paved. No new roads or parking areas are proposed.

Materials will be transported from staging areas to fence alignment by foot or cart. Where steep

slopes and/or rough terrain limit the movement of materials, helicopters may be used to deliver

materials. It is expected that helicopters flights will be based out of the Jacqueline Cochran

Regional Airport in Thermal. They will pick up materials and would take-off and land at

preapproved staging areas. The ground surface at both staging sites has been previously disturbed,

and additional grading is not anticipated. Helicopter operations will kick up sand and dust in the

immediate vicinity, but sensitive receptors are well removed from the staging sites. Therefore,

impacts will be limited, temporary and will end once helicopter flights are complete. Helicopter

emissions were calculated using Federal Aviation Administration’s Emissions and Dispersion

Modeling System and the California Climate Action Registry General Reporting Protocol.

Emissions associated with helicopter operations will be less than significant

Modeled impacts for criteria pollutants indicate that the Project construction will not violate any

threshold for these pollutants. Over the long-term, the Project will require routine inspection and

occasional repairs. It is expected that the same methods described above will be used during this

phase and will include one truck ferrying personnel and materials to the repair sites.

Operational emissions associated with the Project will be negligible and limited to mobile

emissions from routine maintenance of the fence. SCAQMD criteria pollutant thresholds will not

be exceeded by the Project. Therefore, impacts are considered less than significant.

The Project will not generate significant objectionable odors during construction or operation. The

Project has the potential to result in short-term odors associated with vehicle trips; however,

construction-related odors would be quickly dispersed below detectable thresholds and as distance

from the construction site increases. Therefore, impacts from objectionable odors are less than

significant.

Air Quality - GHG Impacts

Construction activities will result in short-term GHG emissions from construction equipment and

employee commutes. GHG emissions from construction are temporary and will not substantially

affect climate or interfere with a GHG reduction plan. Operational activities associated with the

Project are limited to mobile sources associated with routine fence maintenance. GHG emissions

associated with the Project will not exceed the existing SCAQMD 10,000 MTCO2e/year threshold

27

or the recommended Tier 3 3,000 MTCO2e/year threshold. Therefore, impacts will be less than

significant.

Operations-Related GHG Impacts

Operation of barrier maintenance vehicles would not exceed SCAQMD regulation of operational

emissions. Operation would not significantly increase mobile emissions and therefore would not

conflict with the reduction goals of SB 375. In addition, the Project will not conflict with the goals

of executive order S-3-05 because it is not considered a “large emitter” of GHGs (25,000 MT

CO2e/year) requiring cap-and-trade regulation per CARB’s regulatory measure to help achieve

statewide GHG reduction goals. The Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or

regulation adopted for the purposes of reducing the emissions of GHGs. This impact would be less

than significant.

3. Mitigation Measures

The Project will not have a significant adverse effect on air quality nor will it be a significant

generator of greenhouse gases, either during construction or long-term maintenance of the barrier.

No mitigation measures are required.

4. Residual Impacts

Neither construction nor maintenance-related emissions of criteria pollutants or GHGs will exceed

regulatory thresholds. Therefore, construction and operational activities will not violate air quality

standards or conflict with an applicable air quality plan. Mitigation measures are not required. Any

residual impacts to air quality or climate change will be de minimis.

H. Noise

1. Thresholds

NOI-1: Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess

of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable

standards of other agencies? (IS.12.a; DEIR II-K, III-H; FEIR 1.6.2.H)

NOI-2: Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive

groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (IS.12.b; DEIR II-K, III-H; FEIR

1.6.2.H)

NOI-3: Would the project result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in

the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (IS.12.c; DEIR II-K, III-H;

FEIR 1.6.2.H)

NOI-4: Would the project result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise

levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (IS.12.d; DEIR II-

K, III-H; FEIR 1.6.2.H)

NOI-5: For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been

adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project

expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (IS.12.e;

DEIR II-K, III-H; FEIR 1.6.2.H)

NOI-6: For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people

residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (IS.12.f; DEIR II-K, III-

H; FEIR 1.6.2.H)

2. Impacts

Construction of the Project may occur in phases, with Phase I anticipated in the vicinity of PGA

West, where PBS encroachment into urban areas has been most prevalent. The Project will involve

28

field surveying, staking, and fence construction. Vehicles carrying fence supplies and personnel

will park in designated staging areas, and construction equipment will be transported from parking

areas to construction sites by hand or carts. Equipment will include lightweight, mobile machinery

and hand tools, such as augers, shovels, posthole diggers and drivers, tension equipment, drills,

and pliers. Rock drills may be required; however, no blasting of bedrock will occur. Fence posts

will be secured with a concrete mixture. Much of the work will be done by hand.

Analysis of potential noise impacts indicates that noise levels up to 98 dBA, at 50 feet from the

source, may be generated by a rock drill; other equipment typically generates noise levels in the

80 dBA range. Actual noise levels will depend on equipment used during the process and the

distance between the noise source and any sensitive receptors. Much of the Project will be

constructed using lightweight hand tools and supplies, which generate lower noise levels.

Two helipad/staging area sites have been identified in the Project area and include CVWD-owned

land south of the La Quinta Cove near CVWD water reservoirs, and Bureau of Reclamation land

(managed by CVWD) northwest of the Lake Cahuilla Recreation Area firearms training facility.

The La Quinta Cove site is more than 1,500 feet south of the nearest sensitive receptor (single

family residences). Sensitive receptors in proximity to the Lake Cahuilla staging site are limited

to County Park users, with the closest park use area (equestrian trailer park) being approximately

1,000 feet southwest of the staging site.

Both staging sites were previously approved by CVWD for helicopter usage during CDFW sheep

capture operations. The specific type of helicopter(s) that will be used during construction of the

Project has not yet been determined; however, helicopter noise levels will range up to 99 dBA at

50 feet. At 100 feet, the noise levels during helicopter flyovers would range from 74.2 to 87.4

EPNdB (Effective Perceived Noise Level in Decibels). At 800- feet, flyover noise levels would

range from 56.2 to 69.4 EPNdB. While helicopter noise levels during takeoff and approach will

be greater, due to the lack of close by sensitive receptors and the short duration of takeoffs and

approaches, impacts are expected to be limited and less than significant. The Project site is not

located in the vicinity of a private airstrip. No impacts will occur.

3. Mitigation

The following Project design measures will ensure that project noise impacts are avoided or

mitigated to less than significant levels.

N-1 Project construction activities shall only occur between the permitted hours of the La Quinta

Municipal Code. The project construction supervisor shall ensure compliance.

N-2 During all project site construction, all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be

equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers, consistent with manufacturers’

standards. The construction supervisor shall place all stationary construction equipment so

that emitted noise is directed away from the noise-sensitive receivers nearest the Project site.

N-3 To the greatest extent practicable, the project construction supervisor shall limit the use of

noise generating construction equipment in proximity to residences and shall rely on hand

tools to avoid or minimize noise impacts to these sensitive receptors.

N-4 Prior to the initiation of helicopter flights, the construction supervisor shall coordinate with

the helicopter operator and shall plan flight routes that minimize the exposure of local

residents and park users to helicopter noise.

29

N-5 The construction supervisor shall limit haul truck deliveries to the same hours specified for

construction equipment by the La Quinta Municipal Code.

4. Residual Impacts

There will be no or very limited residual impacts to the ambient noise environment once the Project

is completed. While the buildout of the barrier may take up to 18 months, construction noise, when

it occurs, will be short-term and during the least sensitive times of the day. The additional

recommended measures cited above further ensure that residual impacts are avoided or minimized.

I. Hazardous and Toxic Materials

1. Thresholds

HAZ-1: Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through

the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (IS.8.a; DEIR II-N, III-K;

FEIR 1.6.2.K)

HAZ-2: Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through

reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous

materials into the environment? (IS.8.b; DEIR II-N, III-K; FEIR 1.6.2.K)

HAZ-3: Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous

materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?

(IS.8.c; DEIR II-N, III-K; FEIR 1.6.2.K)

HAZ-4: Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials

sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it

create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (IS.8.d; DEIR II-N, III-K;

FEIR 1.6.2.K)

HAZ-5: For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been

adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project

result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (IS.8.e; DEIR

II-N, III-K; FEIR 1.6.2.K)

HAZ-6: For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety

hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (IS.8.f; DEIR II-N, III-K; FEIR

1.6.2.K)

HAZ-7: Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted

emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (IS.8.g; DEIR II-N, III-K; FEIR

1.6.2.K)

HAZ-8: Would the project 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? (IS.8.h; DEIR II-N, III-K; FEIR

1.6.2.K)

2. Impacts

The Project will require the delivery of fencing materials, concrete, and a variety of hand-driven

and motor-operated tools for fence construction, and will involve the use of transport vehicles,

including trucks, carts and helicopters. Helicopter and motor vehicle service and maintenance

would occur off site or at pre-approved staging areas. Only small quantities of fuels and lubricants

would be brought to the project site, and their use can be well controlled. Long-term Project

operation will involve routine inspections of the fence on foot. Hand-driven (and possibly motor

operated) tools may be used in the event that repairs are needed. Neither the construction nor

operational phases of the Project will create any significant hazards to the public or the

environment through the transport, use, storage or disposal of any hazardous materials. Impacts

30

will be less than significant.

According to the environmental database review, the Project route is not included on any lists of

active, unmitigated hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section

65962.5. Therefore, the Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the

environment. No impact will occur.

Impacts to Schools

The Project would not result in hazardous emissions or the handling of hazardous materials within

0.25 miles of an existing or proposed school. No schools have been identified within 0.25 miles of

the toe of slope of the Santa Rosa Mountains. The nearest school is La Quinta Middle School

which is approximately one mile north of the Project site. Therefore, the Project will emit no

hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances or waste within a quarter-mile of an existing

or proposed school and will have no impact in this regard.

Impacts to Airports

The Project is not located within the boundaries of an airport land use plan or an airport where

such a plan has been adopted. It may require occasional helicopter flights into the Santa Rosa

Mountains above existing development to deliver fencing materials and possibly work crews along

the alignment. Helicopter operations are expected to be coordinated out of the Jacqueline Cochran

Airport. The Project will not result in a significant safety hazard for people residing or working in

the project area, as helicopter operations will be based at pre-approved staging areas away from

residential and golf course. No impacts will result.

The project site is not located in the vicinity of a private airstrip and, therefore, will not result in

safety hazards to such a facility.

The Project is not located within an adopted or designated emergency response planning area.

Therefore, it would not interfere with an emergency evacuation plan. No impact will occur.

The Project site is geographically isolated and portions of the mountains upslope of the Project

corridor area are designated by CAL FIRE as “very high fire hazard severity zones” under federal

responsibility. These include public lands west of Lake Cahuilla and south of the Tradition Golf

Club. These areas are undeveloped and consist of rocky, sparsely vegetated slopes and narrow,

typically dry drainages.

While the Project could place the fence in areas where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas

or where residences are intermixed with wildlands, the fence will not pose any new wildfire threats

to structures or populations in the project area. Fires in proximity to structures and populations

will be fought either within these developments or by air, the terrain being too steep and hillside

vegetation too thin to effectively fight a hillside wildfire by hand. Numerous vehicle and pedestrian

gates will be installed along the fence to facilitate emergency access. Therefore, while the Project

would create a physical barrier between downslope developed land and upslope mountains that are

designated a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, there is a less than significant potential to

restrict emergency access between the two. Impacts will be less than significant.

3. Mitigation

Impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials from the implementation of the Project

will be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

4. Residual Impacts

31

The implementation of the Project will not have a significant effect on or threat of the release of

hazardous materials or expose humans to hazards or hazardous materials.

J. Visual Resources

1. Thresholds

VIS-1: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (IS.1.a; DEIR II-

L, III-I; FEIR 1.6.2.I)

VIS-2: Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to,

trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (IS.1.b;

DEIR II-L, III-I; FEIR 1.6.2.I)

VIS-3: Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site

and its surroundings? (IS.1.c; DEIR II-L, III-I; FEIR 1.6.2.I)

VIS-4: Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely

affect day or nighttime views in the area? (IS.1.d; DEIR II-L, III-I; FEIR 1.6.2.I)

2. Impacts

Portions of the Project generally follow the toe of slope, along the urban-mountain interface

between urban development on the valley floor and mountainous open space. The alignment is

located further upslope in the vicinity of portions of the Tradition development, PGA West and

the western extension of the Quarry Golf Course. The entire length of the fence is in an area with

high visual resource values. The Project will result in the construction of a 67,610±-foot long, 8±-

foot high fence where no fence currently exists. It will connect to the existing CVWD and

SilverRock Resort fences to form a seamless barrier along the toe of slope and elsewhere along

the alignment. In most locations, the fence is proposed along or near the toe of slope, or within a

corridor extending 30± feet above the toe of slope. Mountain elevations in the Project area reach

up to 1,600 feet above mean sea level. Therefore, in terms of elevation, the Project will be

relatively low-reaching and will have no impact on mid-range or high elevations.

The Project will change the visual landscape at lower elevations, except in the west-central portion

of PGA West where the fence will be constructed on the west side of the ridgeline approximately

⅓ mile farther west and out of view of residences and golfers at PGA West, resulting in

considerably lower visual impacts in this area. The fence will not be noticeable or obtrusive to

observers in these locations, except for the very limited area where it breaks the ridgeline.

Construction would occur during permissible daytime hours, and no new lighting sources would

be installed. Impacts to visual resources from development of the Project will be less than

significant.

The Project will not substantially damage trees, rock outcroppings, historic buildings or other

scenic resources. Much of the Project area contains massive bedrock outcroppings, boulders,

cobbles, and vegetation, which could complicate fence construction. The project description

allows flexibility in the final route selected so that significant and/or construction-limiting

landforms can be avoided. The Project will require post hole digging and possibly rock drilling to

anchor fence posts, but no grading, blasting, or mass removal of natural materials. The Project is

linear, and areas of visual impact are expected to be confined to within several feet of the fence

line. No historic buildings are located along the proposed alignment, and none will be impacted

by the Project. There are no state-designated scenic highways in the Project vicinity. Project-

related impacts will be less than significant.

The Project will not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site or its

surroundings. The majority of the fence route is along the toe of slope of the Santa Rosa Mountains,

32

where numerous urban improvements have been built, including golf course fairways, tees, and

greens, cart paths, Coachella Canal, Lake Cahuilla Recreation Area facilities, and residences. The

Project area also includes existing fences and barriers, including the existing CVWD and

SilverRock Resort sheep exclusion fence and a perimeter block wall along the Quarry’s northern

boundary. Although the Project represents a new element of the built environment, it lacks the

mass or heaviness of buildings, will be “see-through” (as opposed to a solid block wall), will be

painted to blend with the surrounding environment, and will not significantly interrupt the overall

visual cohesion or quality of the landscape. Impacts will be less than significant.

Light and Glare

The Project would generate no additional light or glare from construction vehicles and equipment

during the construction phase, and no construction will occur in the evening hours. No

construction-related or long-term operational light or glare will be generated. The Project will not

conflict with the provisions set forth in the City Lighting Ordinance or Section 4.5.3 of the

CVMSHCP. No adverse impacts will occur.

3. Mitigation

Impacts will be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

4. Residual Impacts

The Project will have a less than significant residual impact on local and regional visual resources.

Walls and fences already bound portions of the planning area, including the existing 9,128± feet

of fencing along the Coachella Canal and the toe of slope of the SilverRock Resort. Elsewhere, the

fence will be away from golf course areas, homes and most trail alignments.

K. Utilities/Service Systems and Public Services

1. Thresholds

Utilities and Service Systems Thresholds:

UTIL-1: Will the project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional

Water Quality Control Board? (IS.17.a; DEIR II-M, III-J; FEIR 1.6.2.J)

UTIL-2: Will the project 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? (IS.17.b; DEIR II-M, III-J; FEIR 1.6.2.J)

UTIL-3: Will the project 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? (IS.17.c; DEIR II-M, III-J; FEIR 1.6.2.J)

UTIL-4: Will the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing

entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (IS.17.d; DEIR

II-M, III-J; FEIR 1.6.2.J)

UTIL-5: Will the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which

serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s

projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? (IS.17.e; DEIR II-

M, III-J; FEIR 1.6.2.J)

UTIL-6: Will the project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate

the project’s solid waste disposal needs? (IS.17.f; DEIR II-M, III-J; FEIR 1.6.2.J)

UTIL-7: Will the project comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to

solid waste? (IS.17.g; DEIR II-M, III-J; FEIR 1.6.2.J)

33

Public Services Thresholds:

PUB-1: Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the

provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically

altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant

environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or

other performance objectives for any of the public services:

Fire protection?

Police protection?

Schools?

Parks?

Other public facilities?

(IS.14.a; DEIR II-M, III-J; FEIR 1.6.2.J)

2. Impacts

Police and Fire Protection

The Project will not require new or physically altered fire or police protection facilities and will

not result in adverse physical impacts associated with such facilities. The proposed fence would

consist of metal materials, which will not increase fire hazards in the area, and no buildings or

habitable structures are proposed that would attract additional population to the area or increase

safety risks to people.

The Project will create a physical barrier that could limit emergency access between the desert

floor and mountain slopes, portions of which are designated a Very High Fire Hazard Severity

Zone. However, fuel loads in the Project planning area are quite low, and the fire hazard

classification probably overstates the fire hazard. Nonetheless, the Project will include gates at

locations along the fence line to assure continued access by emergency personnel, including fire

crews. No new or expanded services or facilities will be required. No adverse impacts will occur.

Schools and Libraries

The Project will not result in or require new or physically altered schools or libraries. It will not

generate or attract additional residents to the area, and therefore, will have no impact on school

enrollment or library usage and will not result in the need for new or physically altered facilities.

Parks

Impacts to parks are evaluated in Section 3.L, Recreational Resources.

Water, Wastewater, and Stormwater

The Project will not require or result in the construction or expansion of new or existing water

infrastructure. The Project would generate demand for approximately 199,319 gallons of water for

mixing concrete and staging area dust control. Water will be transported to the site via water trucks,

and no new or expanded water infrastructure will be needed to serve the Project. No impacts will

occur.

The Project will not generate wastewater and will not require the construction of new wastewater

treatment facilities or the expansion of existing facilities. No impacts to wastewater facilities will

occur.

The Project will not require or result in the construction of new or expanded stormwater drainage

facilities. Where drainage flows may be crossed along the alignment, flapper gates will be installed

34

at the base of the fence to facilitate drainage and debris flows. The Project alignment will not result

in new or expanded stormwater facilities and there will be no associated environmental impacts.

The Project will require minimal quantities of water for mixing concrete for securing fence posts

and minimizing dust during construction. This demand constitutes a de minimis fraction of the

groundwater storage capacity in the Thermal Subarea of the Whitewater River Subbasin, the

groundwater basin from which groundwater for the Project area is extracted. CVWD has sufficient

water and local infrastructure available to serve the Project. No impacts to entitlements will occur.

Solid Waste

During the construction phase, the Project may generate minimal solid waste, such as packaging

and excess fencing materials and hardware. Fence contractors will be responsible for assuring

proper disposal, including recycling where feasible. The Project area is served by three landfills

with approximately 175 million tons of existing capacity. Impacts to landfills will be less than

significant. Burrtec operates solid waste collection and handling facilities in the Project area in

compliance with applicable solid waste statutes and regulations. No adverse impacts related to

solid waste services or regulations will occur.

3. Mitigation

The Project will not result in significant impacts and, therefore, no mitigation measures are

required.

4. Residual Impacts

There are no adverse residual impacts associated with this Project and the provision of

utilities/service systems and public services.

L. Recreational Resources

1. Thresholds

REC-1: Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other

recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would

occur or be accelerated? (IS.15.a; DEIR II-O, III-L; FEIR 1.6.2.L)

REC-2: Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion

of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the

environment? (IS.15.b; DEIR II-O, III-L; FEIR 1.6.2.L)

2. Impacts

The Project will not increase the use of existing park or recreational facilities and will have no

effect on the physical deterioration of such facilities. The Project does not propose new recreational

facilities or features that would attract additional users to the area. A very limited number of

workers will be involved in fence construction and maintenance, and the Project will not trigger

new growth or attract new residents to the area such that the use or physical deterioration of

existing parks and recreational facilities would be affected. Existing open space and park facilities

in the Project vicinity will meet the limited additional demand, if any, that may be generated by

the Project for such facilities.

The Project will have no impact on the County Lake Cahuilla Recreational Area. The Project will

also have no effect on nearby golf courses, public or private, and will not generate an additional

demand for such facilities. The alignment will not cross or otherwise affect the Lake Cahuilla main

park gate, access road, or parking facilities. Pedestrian and/or vehicle gates will be provided where

35

the Project crosses the Boo Hoff or Cove to Lake trails. The Project will restrict access to upslope

land within the County Park boundary, but these areas are already off-limits to the public.

Therefore, with regard to recreational facilities and services, the Project will not have an adverse

physical effect on the environment.

3. Mitigation

The Project will not result in significant impacts and, therefore, no mitigation measures are

required.

4. Residual Impacts

There will be very limited residual impacts associated with this Project and recreational resources,

including installation of gates where the Project crosses recreational trails.

SECTION 4

FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS NOT FULLY MITIGATED TO A

LEVEL OF LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT

The Commission hereby finds that there will be no significant environmental impacts as a result

of the Project.

SECTION 5

FINDINGS REGARDING CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

Pursuant to section 15130(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines, cumulative impacts of a project shall

be discussed when they are “cumulatively considerable,” as defined in section 15065(a)(3) of the State

CEQA Guidelines. Cumulatively considerable “means that the incremental effects of an individual project

are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current

projects, and the effects of probable future projects.” (State CEQA Guidelines § 15065(a)(3).)

Section III of the EIR assesses cumulative impacts for each applicable environmental issue, and

does so to a degree that reflects each impact’s severity and likelihood of occurrence. With implementation

of the Mitigation Measures and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project, all of

the Project’s cumulative impacts discussed in this Section 5 can be fully mitigated to a less than significant

level.

A. Land Use

Finding: The Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact on land use.

Supporting Explanation: The Project will physically separate downslope urban development from

upslope open space but will not divide an established community. The alignment is removed from

urban development to the greatest extent practicable to eliminate or minimize impacts to residences,

golf courses, recreational lands, and urban infrastructure, including the Coachella Canal, Lake

Cahuilla, and CVWD water reservoirs.

36

The Project does not conflict with applicable land use plans or regulations. It will not change General

Plan or Zoning Code land use designations, maps, policies, or existing or proposed land use plans or

development patterns. It is consistent with the management actions prescribed in the Coachella Valley

Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP), Bighorn Sheep Recovery Plan, Coachella

Canal Area Resource Management Plan, and other area resource management plans. The Project will

not encumber urban land uses, including existing and approved development in the Project area.

The Project implements and is consistent with the requirements of the CVMSHCP, which requires the

construction of a barrier when PBS are using artificial food or water in an unfenced area adjacent to a

Conservation Area, and the barrier guidelines provided in the Bighorn Sheep Recovery Plan.

B. Traffic/Circulation

Finding: The Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact on traffic or circulation.

Supporting Explanation: Project construction would result in temporary and very limited short-term

traffic increases from trucks and other vehicles accessing the Project area from existing roads in

Tradition Golf Club, SilverRock Resort, PGA West, Lake Cahuilla Recreation Area, and Quarry Golf

Club. Construction vehicle parking will occur on local roads or other areas in coordination with the

City, County, and golf course communities. No construction-related delays, closures, or detours are

anticipated. Helicopter lifts may be needed to transport materials to steep mountainous terrain along

the Project alignment and would be conducted by fully licensed and certified pilots according to pre-

established flight paths. Two helipad sites have been identified in the DEIR and approved for the

staging of helicopter flights. The contribution of the Project to traffic and circulation impacts on local

roadways following completion of construction would be limited to a few trips per year and would be

de minimis. Cumulative impacts will be less than considerable.

C. Geology and Soils

Finding: There will be no incremental or cumulative impacts related to geology or soils.

Supporting Explanation: Development of the Project will not result in the creation or exacerbation

of potentially hazardous geotechnical conditions in the planning area. Post-construction, these

conditions will be comparable to natural conditions. The Project will have no impact on geologic or

soil conditions onsite or on adjacent development. Similarly, it will not adversely impact the geologic

or soil conditions or hazards on existing or planned future development in the planning area. (DEIR

Sec. C.4.3) Therefore, because the Project will not have any impacts, cumulative impacts will not be

considerable.

D. Hydrology

Finding: There will be no incremental or cumulative impacts related to hydrology.

Supporting Explanation: The Project's contribution to adverse effects on water quality and

groundwater supplies, effects on drainage patterns, and the placement of structures and people within

100-year floodplains have been assessed on this basis. Construction of the Project across planning area

drainages will be accomplished using light-duty construction vehicles, other equipment, and surveying

and construction personnel. Encroachment by vehicles into project drainages will be very limited.

Materials staging within area drainages will be avoided and permanent disturbance will be largely

limited to 1-foot by 2-foot postholes. Standard BMPs that are a part of this project will preclude the

37

discharge of contaminated runoff. Once construction is completed, the long-term cumulative effects

of the fence on area drainages and water quality will be very low.

Elsewhere in the Project planning area there have been a wide range of impacts to area drainages,

some of which extend back more than 50 years when the USBR Dikes 1 and 2 were constructed, the

County Transportation Department “quarry” (now The Quarry) was mined for road building materials,

and the Coachella Branch Canal and Lake Cahuilla were constructed. With the possible exception of

the Tradition, the development of which has required construction of a network of basins and

conveyances, golf course development in the planning area has less of an effect on area drainages and

water quality. In this context and in light of the very limited impacts from the Project, the Project will

not have a cumulatively considerable impact on area drainages and water quality. (DEIR Sec. D.4.3)

E. Biological Resources

Finding: There will be no incremental or cumulative impacts related to biological resources.

Supporting Explanation: The Project has been designed to adhere to local, state, and federal

regulations related to the protection of biological resources; therefore, the Project would not make a

considerable contribution to cumulative impacts to biological resources. Impacts have been assessed

on both a regional and local level. The Project is largely within the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto

Mountains Conservation Area of the CVMSHCP and would have direct beneficial impacts on PBS in

this area. The CVCC must comply with all applicable terms and conditions of the CVMSHCP and

Implementing Agreement, including the provision of mitigation for the loss of habitat accessible by

sheep.

With regard to other potential impacts to biological resources in and outside of a Conservation Area,

the biological resource assessments prepared for the Project conclude that the Project-related impacts

to biological resources will be less than significant. The avoidance and minimization measures set

forth above serve to further ensure that impacts are reduced to the greatest extent practicable. CVCC

shall also comply with all terms and conditions of the CVMSHCP, including the implementation (if

needed) of the “Land Use Adjacency Guidelines,” as set forth in the CVMSHCP. Compliance with

the guidelines also serves to avoid and minimize impacts to species not covered by the CVMSHCP.

Therefore, the Project’s impacts to biological resources will be less than significant and the Project’s

contribution to cumulative impacts will not be cumulatively considerable. (DEIR Sec. E.4.3)

F. Cultural Resources

Finding: There will be no incremental or cumulative impacts related to cultural resources.

Supporting Explanation: With the implementation of mitigation measures set forth in the Draft EIR,

no new significant impacts to historic or archaeological resources will result from the Project that are

cumulatively considerable. Additional ground disturbance or development in the Project area which

could impact cultural resources will be limited to that associated with the approved Coral Canyon

residential development south of the Quarry development and not a part of this Project. Other future

development in the vicinity, including the Travertine project south of Coral Canyon and on the valley

floor could also impact cultural resources if not properly mitigated. Lands to the southeast located

within the area of influence of ancient Lake Cahuilla and its prehistoric shoreline are in various stages

of development. As with the Project, other development will also be required to avoid or mitigate

38

impacts to cultural resources. Again, with the implementation of the above mitigation measures, the

Project’s impacts on cultural resources will be less than cumulatively considerable. (DEIR Sec. F.4.3)

G. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases

Finding: There will be no incremental or cumulatively considerable impacts related to air quality or

emission of greenhouse gases.

Supporting Explanation: Any activity resulting in emissions of PM10, ozone, or ozone precursors

will unavoidably contribute, at some level, to regional non-attainment designations of ozone and PM10.

However, the level of impact a single project may have on regional air quality is difficult to measure.

The Coachella Valley enforces the SCAQMD 2016 Air Quality Management Plan and 2003 PM10

Coachella Valley State Implementation Plan (CVSIP) to ensure levels of criteria pollutants are

regulated and minimized to the best of the region’s ability, particularly through the enforcement of

SCAQMD daily thresholds.

Construction activities associated with development of the Project will not exceed SCAQMD daily

thresholds for criteria pollutants. However, emission of CO, NOx, ROG, and PM10 during construction

of the Project is unavoidable and will marginally contribute to regional ozone and PM10 non-

attainment designations.

Regulation of Ozone

Cumulative contributions to ozone levels are managed on a multi-regional scale as opposed to single

projects. CalEEMod does not calculate ozone emissions directly and, therefore, emissions of ozone

precursors (CO, NOx, and ROG) were evaluated to determine project-related impacts to ozone. Ozone

precursors are the primary pollutants involved in the chemical reaction process that forms ozone. The

Project will not exceed local construction or operational thresholds for ozone precursors under

unmitigated conditions.

Development of the Project will adhere to ozone reduction measures set forth in the SCAQMD AQMP,

and thresholds for ozone precursors (CO, NOX, and ROG) will not be exceeded. Therefore, the Project

will not result in cumulatively considerable impacts related to ozone formation or emission of ozone

precursors.

Regulation of PM10

Similar to ozone, PM10 is regulated through the SCAQMD 2016 Air Quality Management Plan and

2003 PM10 Coachella Valley State Implementation Plan (CVSIP). Additional PM10 reduction

measures include applicable state code and AQMD Rules, such as Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust), which

enforces fugitive dust compliance for all activities within the SSAB. The Draft EIR analysis indicates

that the Project will not exceed local daily thresholds for PM10. Therefore, cumulative impacts to PM10

are considered less than significant.

In conclusion, cumulative air quality impacts related to construction and operation of the Project are

considered less than significant. Project development and operation will not exceed air quality

maximum daily thresholds for CO, NOx and PM10, which are cumulative thresholds by their nature.

In addition, the Project is consistent with regulation requirements of ozone and PM10 in the Salton Sea

Air Basin. Therefore, cumulative impacts related to ozone and PM10 emissions will be less than

significant. (DEIR Sec. G.4.3)

39

H. Noise

Finding: There will be no incremental or cumulatively considerable impacts related to noise levels.

Supporting Explanation: Portions of the Project fence alignment are in proximity to existing

residential and golf course development in Tradition, SilverRock (already built), PGA West, and the

Quarry, as well as parkland and campsites at Lake Cahuilla Recreation Area. The barrier is expected

to be built primarily with the use of lightweight machinery and/or hand tools, and noise levels are not

expected to be excessive. However, should rock drills, helicopters, and other machinery be required

in locations where terrain is challenging, noise levels could occasionally exceed 80 to 90 decibels.

Impacts would be of short duration but could be intrusive, particularly to sensitive receptors

(residences). Construction noise will be temporary and intermittent, will occur during the least

sensitive times of the day, and will be constructed in conformance with the La Quinta Municipal Code.

Impacts will be less than significant with mitigation. Other than periodic inspections and occasional

repairs, which could generate isolated noise events similar to those generated during construction, the

Project will generate no significant construction noise and will generate no permanent noise. The

Project will not contribute to permanent changes in the broader noise environment, and no

cumulatively considerable impacts will occur. (DEIR Sec. H.4.3)

I. Visual Resources

Finding: There will be very limited incremental or cumulatively considerable impacts to visual

resources.

Supporting Explanation: The geographic scope for the analysis of cumulative impacts on visual

resources consists of the Project area and its immediate vicinity, including parcels adjacent to the

Project or those subject to similar resource and development plans. Impacts to points of access to more

removed resources have also been considered. The Project will have a less than significant cumulative

impact on local and regional visual resources. Future planned development in the Project area will

result in new buildings, roads and infrastructure on the valley floor. Portions of these projects are

planned in proximity to the Project, but do not include development adjacent to the toe of slope or on

higher elevations. The potential visual effects that will result from the buildout of approved projects

will be substantially greater than those associated with the Project. The Project fence will be a thin,

transparent, linear feature that, as shown on photos in the Draft EIR, will be difficult to discern from

even a modest distance. Therefore, the Project will not have a cumulatively considerable impact on

area visual resources. (DEIR Sec. I.4.3)

J. Public Services/Utilities

Finding: There will be no incremental or cumulatively considerable impacts to public utilities or

service systems.

Supporting Explanation: There will be very limited cumulative effects associated with the Project.

Most public services and utilities are not needed and those services or utilities that may serve the

Project will not result in significant adverse effects. Once completed, there will be no demand for these

services or any utility. Therefore, the Project would have a less than cumulatively considerable impact

on public services, facilities or utilities. (DEIR Sec. J.4.3)

K. Hazards and Hazardous Materials

40

Finding: There will be no incremental or cumulatively considerable hazards or hazardous materials

or impacts associated with the Project.

Supporting Explanation: The geographic scope for the analysis of cumulative impacts relating to

hazards and hazardous materials consists of the toe of the Santa Rosa Mountains (including the golf

courses and CVWD water tanks) and lands surrounding the Project where an adverse effect could

occur, including roadways and golf courses. The Project will not require the storage or ongoing use of

chemicals or other hazardous materials and would not contribute to cumulative impacts related to

hazards and hazardous materials. Any hazardous materials transport associated with the Project will

be subject to local, state and federal regulations. CVCC and its contractors will be required to comply

with the laws and regulations governing the use, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials. Based

on existing, planned and reasonably anticipated development in the project vicinity, the contribution

of the Project to hazards and hazardous material associated with other projects will not be cumulatively

considerable. (DEIR Sec. K.4.3)

L. Recreational Resources

Finding: There will be no or very little incremental or cumulatively considerable impacts to

recreational resources associated with the Project.

Supporting Explanation: The potential for the Project to generate an individually insignificant, but

cumulatively substantial, impact to area recreational resources has been considered.

Trails Access

The Project requires the construction of the barrier across the Cove to Lake Trail within Lake Cahuilla

Recreation Area. Gates shall be constructed where the fence crosses the trail alignment allowing easy

user access while precluding sheep access to the park area. The Project will impact neither the Boo

Hoff nor the Bear Creek Trails. Impacts will not be cumulatively considerable.

Lake Cahuilla Recreation Area

While the Project will constrain park user access to the surrounding hillside, upslope areas are not

used for recreational purposes. Gates will be provided where the Project crosses trail heads. No parks

facilities will be significantly impacted either directly or indirectly. Impacts will not be cumulatively

considerable.

All American Canal Trail

The Project will have no direct impact on the County’s proposed All-American Canal Trail, which is

planned along the Coachella Canal from Lake Cahuilla Recreation Area to the eastern Coachella

Valley. The Project is located along the west and north side of Lake Cahuilla, and it will not cross or

affect access to, or use of the canal-oriented trail. The Project will not have a cumulative effect on this

trail.

SilverRock Resort

The Project will have no impact on existing and future golf course development at SilverRock Resort.

The City of La Quinta has already constructed its own sheep fence at the Resort. There are no public

trails, trailheads or publicly accessible recreational facilities associated with the resort. There will be

no cumulatively substantial impacts to trails, golf or other recreational facilities associated with

SilverRock Resort.

Coral Canyon

The Project will have no impact on planned recreational facilities at Coral Canyon. The nearest Coral

Canyon recreational facility (Lot MM) is planned approximately 320 feet south of the Project (DEIR

41

Exhibit III-5), and the Project will not affect access to or usage of the facility. No cumulatively

substantial impact will occur. (DEIR Sec. L.4.3)

SECTION 6

MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE

1. Impacts to the Environment and Wildlife

Threshold: Would the Project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment,

substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop

below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce

the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important

examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?

Finding: As discussed above and in Section III-E of the EIR, the Project would not result in any

potentially significant, unmitigated environmental impacts to the environment and wildlife. Section

III-F of the EIR determines that impacts to historic, pre-historic or archaeological resources will be

less than significant with implementation of avoidance, minimization and mitigation measures set

forth in the EIR.

Supporting Explanation: The need and mandate for the Project was established in the 2000

Peninsular Bighorn Sheep Recovery Plan and later in the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat

Conservation Plan. The implementation of this Project has been prompted by the high number of sheep

mortalities that have occurred in the Project urban interface area. The Project will not modify the

topographical or biological features of PBS habitat and will result in isolation of a total of 242± acres.

No federally designated "critical habitat" will be affected by the Project.

The Project will also limit potential impacts to burrowing owl (California Species of Concern),

avoiding much of the identified potential habitat for this species. Other sensitive species that may

occur in the planning area include desert tortoise and red-diamond rattlesnake. The probable

occurrence of all of these species in the Project planning area is considered to be low to moderate.

Therefore, there is some, if limited, potential for significant impacts to these species. Avoidance of

impacts to these species will be easily accomplished via mitigation measures if they are encountered

during project construction.

There are no riparian habitat areas, nor are there any special status natural communities within the

planning area. Therefore, the Project will have no substantial or significant adverse impact on riparian

habitat or any other sensitive natural community. The Project will not interfere substantially with the

movement of sheep or any other native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, other than to

prevent PBS from accessing urban lands in the Project area. The Project will not affect wildlife

movement along established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or impede the use of native

wildlife nursery sites.

The Project also continues to implement the CVMSHCP, is based on species-specific surveys,

provides for pre-construction surveys and compliance with the MBTA, and buffers sensitive biological

resources from urban development. Based upon the need to respond to existing adverse conditions

affecting PBS, and because it is consistent with City of La Quinta General Plan policies, the Project

will not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. The purpose of

42

this Project is to bring the management and protection of PBS into harmony with the referenced

conservation plans. The Project will not conflict with these conservation plans.

The Project has limited potential to significantly impact biological resources. Mitigation measures

cited above and set forth in the Draft EIR will ensure that impacts are less than significant. In addition

to participation in the CVMSHCP, which is designed to mitigate potential Project impacts to covered

special-status biological resources, the mitigation measures will avoid and minimize impacts to

special-these status biological resources.

The Project EIR fully evaluated potential impacts on historic, pre-historic or archaeological resources,

including Native American archaeological sites, as well, as historical sites of note. Avoidance is the

primary means of addressing project impacts, as well as documentation and long-term protection. The

Project has the potential to impact biological resources; however, mitigation measures cited above and

set forth in the Draft EIR (Section III-F) will ensure that impacts are less than significant.

2. Cumulatively Considerable Impacts

Threshold: Would the proposed Project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively

considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are

considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current

project, and the effects of probable future projects.)?

Finding: The Project would not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively

considerable.

Supporting Explanation: As discussed further in Section 5 above, the Project would not result in

any potentially significant environmental impacts either individually or when considered in

conjunction with cumulative projects.

3. Substantial Adverse Effects on Human Beings

Threshold: Would the proposed Project have environmental effects which will cause substantial

adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

Finding: The Project is not anticipated to result in any potentially significant environmental impacts.

As a result, the proposed Project will not have any substantial adverse effects on human beings.

Supporting Explanation: Under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15065(a)(4), a lead agency must

find that a project may have a significant effect on the environment where there is substantial evidence

that the project has the potential to cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly

or indirectly. Under this standard, a change to the physical environment that might otherwise be minor

must be treated as significant if humans would be significantly affected. This factor relates to adverse

changes to the environment of human beings generally, and not to effects on particular individuals.

While changes to the environment that could indirectly affect human beings would be represented by

all of the designated CEQA issue areas, those that could directly affect human beings include air

quality, greenhouse gas emissions, hydrology and water quality, noise, transportation and traffic, and

utilities and service systems, each of which is addressed in the Draft EIR and above.

As fully discussed above, the implementation of the Project would require the temporary use of two

staging areas on disturbed lands; materials and personnel transport, and other development activities

may affect local air quality and could adversely affect nearby residents, recreators and others in the

project vicinity. Short-term noise could also adversely impact those living in the area, and these

43

potential impacts were fully analyzed in the DEIR. According to these analyses, the Proposed Project

would have less than significant impacts on human beings, and therefore would not have the potential

to cause substantial adverse effects on human beings.

SECTION 7

FINDINGS REGARDING

SHORT-TERM USE VS. LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY

State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(a) states that an EIR shall identify and describe the

significant environmental effects of a project, including consideration of short-term and long-term effects.

This section addresses the Project in terms of the short-term uses of the environment and the maintenance

and enhancement of its long-term productivity (DEIR Section VI).

Short-term Project impacts would be limited to the construction phase, including increased vehicle

and foot traffic by work crews and noise generated by tools and helicopter operations (if needed). Fencing

materials, vehicle fuel, and limited quantities of water for mixing concrete for fence posts would be

consumed. Construction could also result in some level of disturbance to PBS, such as exposing PBS to

human presence and noise and possibly leading or herding them out of urban areas and up into the slopes

as fencing segments connect to one another. Construction would be phased and timed such that potential

impacts to PBS would be minimized.

The Project is intended as a permanent project that would restrict PBS access to urban land for

many years. Over the long-term, the Project would restrict PBS access to urban lands and hazards, which

is expected to minimize or eliminate unauthorized take of the species. The quality of biological habitat

along the fence alignment is not expected to be affected by the Project. Habitat loss resulting from the

Project will be mitigated through a transfer of conservation objectives consistent with the CVMSHCP.

Long-term visual impacts will be most noticeable to residents, golfers, and trail users in proximity to the

Project. However, the EIR found that visual and aesthetic impacts would be less than significant.

Pedestrian and vehicle gates at trailheads and CVWD access roads will not impede long-term access to

trails or water reservoirs. The Santa Rosa Mountains are not designated for urban uses, and the Project

would not affect or eliminate any future development potential or economic gains that could be generated

onsite.

The temporary, short-term impacts of the construction phase are considered less than significant in the

context of the long-term protection of PBS.

SECTION 8

FINDINGS REGARDING

SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES

44

State CEQA Guidelines section 15162, subd. (c), requires that EIRs reveal the significant

environmental changes that would occur as a result of a proposed project. CEQA also requires decision-

makers to balance the benefits of a project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining

whether to approve a project. This section addresses non-renewable resources, the commitment of future

generations to the proposed uses, and irreversible impacts associated with the Project. (DEIR 5-1.)

The Project is a 67,277±-foot linear barrier, which is the longest of the build alternatives. The

Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) and the SilverRock Resort (City-owned) have already

constructed approximately 9,143± linear feet of sheep fence, including 2,807± linear feet of eight-foot

chain link fence adjacent to the Coachella Canal, and approximately 6,336± linear feet at SilverRock along

the toe of slope.

During Project construction, metal fence materials, hardware, concrete mix, and limited quantities

of water (for mixing concrete and securing fence posts) would be used. Onsite transportation of materials

would be accomplished primarily by foot or cart, which would result in no consumption of nonrenewable

resources. Some gasoline and oil would be consumed by vehicles used during employee commutes to and

from the project area and possible helicopter lifts, but vehicle trips will be temporary and limited in

number. During long-term operation, fuel consumption would depend on the frequency of inspections and

need for repairs.

The Project would not involve short- or long-term transport, use, or storage of hazardous materials,

and no such environmental hazards or accidents that could damage environmental resources are

anticipated.

The Project would eliminate Peninsular bighorn sheep access to 241.95± acres of potential habitat;

however, it would not damage the biological resources on the land or remove it from open space uses.

PBS would not be isolated from any designated "critical habitat." PBS would be able to access other

available and more appropriate habitat, including water sources, in the Santa Rosa Mountains. The Project

would not result in substantial alteration, degradation, or removal of biological or topographical resources,

such as rock outcroppings, cliffs, soils, or vegetation.

The Project would not facilitate or encourage access to open space lands that are currently

inaccessible to humans. Gates would be installed in appropriate locations to assure continued access to

the mountains for recreational and emergency purposes, but the Project would not attract additional human

use of the area.

The Project would result in some degradation of visual resources when viewed at close- or mid-

range. However, visual impacts would be minimized by the use of natural fence colors that complement

surrounding terrain and permeable (“see-through”) fence materials that allow views beyond the fence.

Project-related impacts on distant views and broader scale scenic vistas are not expected to be substantial.

It is conceivable that the proposed barrier could be removed from all or portions of the Project area at a

later time. Should this occur, only the use of water and fuel consumed during construction and operation

would be irretrievable. Fence materials could be re-used or recycled. The other impacts described above

would be temporary, and few, if any, lasting adverse environmental impacts are anticipated. (Draft EIR

5-1.)

SECTION 9

FINDINGS REGARDING GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS

45

State CEQA Guidelines §15126.2(d) requires a discussion of the potential growth-inducing

impacts of a project. This discussion addresses how implementation of the Project would foster economic

or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly upon the

surrounding environment. (Draft EIR, p. 5-2.)

The Project would not result in growth-inducing impacts. The alignment would create a linear

barrier along the urban-mountain interface for the purpose of excluding Peninsular bighorn sheep from

urban lands. It would not directly or indirectly alter or affect existing or future land uses, land use

designations, or development intensities. It does not propose and would not require the extension or

expansion of any utility infrastructure or services that could encourage future growth or remove obstacles

to growth.

Much of the Project area is located within open space that is not directly accessible by roads.

Access to the Project site would be taken from existing roads, including those in adjacent development.

Construction supplies would be transported from staging areas by foot and cart, and depending on terrain

conditions, helicopter drops could be needed. The Project would not require construction of new roads, or

expansion of existing roads or other transportation facilities.

The Project would create a very limited number of new jobs associated with surveying, fence construction,

annual inspections, and occasional repairs, and it is anticipated that the local labor force would fill jobs.

The Project would not significantly impact employment, generate a new revenue stream, or otherwise act

as an economic stimulus.

SECTION 10

FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES

A. Background

A range of potentially feasible build alternatives was developed to provide information and

flexibility to the decision-makers when considering the sheep barrier project and to address impacts

associated with the Project (DEIR Sections I.F.4, III, IV, VI, VII, VIII) . A description of each alternative

and its potential environmental impacts, ability to meet Project objectives, and findings is provided in

Section 10.C.

In addition, the following alternatives were considered but not further analyzed (DEIR Section V):

1) coyote urine and other repellents to deter PBS from using golf courses and other urban areas, 2) herding

PBS from urban landscapes and back into mountain habitat, 3) vegetation as a barrier, 4) electrified

fencing as a barrier, 5) relocation of PBS to another habitat, and 6) installation of gates at Coachella Canal

crossings. The potential benefits and disadvantages of each were evaluated in DEIR Section V. None were

determined to be feasible alternatives, and none were further analyzed in the DEIR.

Section 15126.6 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires EIRs to consider and discuss alternatives

to the proposed actions. Subsection (a) states:

(a) An EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the

location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of

the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of

the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. An EIR need not

consider every conceivable alternative to a project. Rather it must consider a

46

reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed

decision-making and public participation. An EIR is not required to consider

alternatives which are infeasible. The lead agency is responsible for selecting a range

of project alternatives for examination and must publicly disclose its reasoning for

selecting those alternatives. There is no ironclad rule governing the nature or scope

of the alternatives to be discussed other than the rule of reason.

Subsection 15126.6(b) states the purpose of the alternatives analysis:

(b) Because an EIR must identify ways to mitigate or avoid the significant effects that a

project may have on the environment (Public Resources Code Section 21002.1), the

discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the project or its location

which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the

project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the

project objectives, or would be more costly.

In Subsection 15126.6(c), the State CEQA Guidelines describe the selection process for a range of

reasonable alternatives:

(c) The range of potential alternatives to the proposed project shall include those that

could feasibly accomplish most of the basic objectives of the project and could avoid

or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects. The EIR should briefly

describe the rationale for selecting the alternatives to be discussed. The EIR should

also identify any alternatives that were considered by the lead agency but were

rejected as infeasible during the scoping process and briefly explain the reasons

underlying the lead agency’s determination. Additional information explaining the

choice of alternatives may be included in the administrative record. Among the

factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in an

EIR are:(i) failure to meet most of the basic Project objectives, (ii) infeasibility, or

(iii) inability to avoid significant environmental impacts.

The range of alternatives required is governed by a “rule of reason” that requires the EIR to set

forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The EIR shall include sufficient

information about each alternative to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison with the

proposed Project. Alternatives are limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the

significant effects of the Project. Of those alternatives, the EIR need examine in detail only the ones that

the lead agency determines could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the Project.

However, when significant impacts can be mitigated by the adoption of mitigation measures, the

lead agency has no obligation to consider the feasibility of alternatives with respect to that impact in its

findings, even if the alternative would mitigate the impact to a greater degree than the proposed project.

(Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d

692, 730-731; Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the University of California (1988)

47 Cal.3d 376, 400-403; Laurel Hills Homeowners Association v. City Council (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d

515, 521.) The Commission has adopted mitigation measures to avoid all potentially significant

environmental impacts identified in the EIR. Accordingly, the Project will not result in any significant and

unavoidable environmental impacts. Nonetheless, a full analysis of potentially feasible alternatives is

provided below.

B. The Project Objectives

47

The Project seeks to achieve the following key goals and objectives:

A. Provide a fence or other functional equivalent that effectively excludes Peninsular bighorn sheep

from accessing urbanized lands adjacent to PBS habitat, including developed portions of the Quarry

Golf Course, Lake Cahuilla County Park, PGA West, SilverRock Resort and Tradition Golf Club.

B. Minimize the impacts to PBS and other wildlife through the thoughtful selection, design and location

of the PBS barrier.

C. Minimize the area of mountain and other habitat, including foraging and lambing areas, that may be

restricted from sheep access and use as a consequence of the barrier.

D. Provide an effective PBS barrier that minimizes the impacts on adjacent residential/resort and golf

course developments by integrating barrier design and location into adjoining development in the

most sensitive manner practicable.

E. Minimize the impacts of a PBS barrier on public parks, and open space, and ensure continued access

to authorized area trails.

F. Minimize the impacts of a PBS barrier on adjoining land uses and private lands.

G. Provide a PBS barrier that can be cost-effectively constructed and maintained.

C. Evaluation of Alternatives Selected for Analysis

1. Alternative D: “No Project” Alternative

Description. Under Alternative D: No Project Alternative, no PBS barrier would be built, and the

existing unfettered access of PBS to cross the wildland/urban interface and access urban

development would continue. Ongoing sheep access to surrounding golf courses and urban

development would continue to expose sheep to the identified hazards of vehicular collisions,

drowning in the canal and swimming pools, poisoning from toxic non-native plants, exposure to

conditions that can promote disease outbreaks harmful to sheep, and the artificial congregation of

sheep to levels that facilitate the transmission of diseases when they do break out.

Impacts. Alternative D would maintain current conditions in the Project area. PBS would continue

to access urban lands and be exposed to urban hazards, with the high probability of resulting in

additional PBS injuries and/or deaths. The inaction of Alternative D to restrict PBS access to urban

lands would result in continued conflict with existing habitat management and species protection

policies (CVMSHCP, Recovery Plan), and could result in the need for additional wildlife

management policies or commitment of resources in the future.

As set forth in CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6, project alternatives should be assessed for the

degree to which they avoid or lessen impacts when compared to the proposed Project. Compared

to the proposed Project, Alternative D would be expected to perpetuate or increase urban-related

injuries and/or deaths to PBS over time, and continue conflicts with species protection measures

of the CVMSHCP. In summary, Alternative D would not avoid or lessen impacts to the species.

Objectives. Alternative D would not meet the Project objectives because it fails to provide a fence

or functional equivalent to keep PBS from accessing golf courses and other urban lands (Project

Objectives A and B).

Findings. Although findings rejecting alternatives in favor of the Project are not required because

48

the Project, as proposed, would not result in any significant and unavoidable impacts (Pub. Res.

Code, § 21002), for the reasons set forth herein and in the Final EIR, the Commission hereby

rejects the No Project Alternative because it would not attain the Project objectives. (State CEQA

Guidelines, § 15126.6(c)(i).)

2. Alternative A: Toe-of-Slope Alignment

Description. Alternative A: Toe-of-Slope Alignment (Draft EIR Exhibit I-6) follows the toe-of-

slope of the Santa Rosa Mountains for most of its length, other than areas where it is located

upslope to avoid conflicts with adjoining land uses. Its alignment is identical to the proposed

Project is all locations except in the vicinity of the Coachella Canal drop structure within PGA

West where Alternative A follows the toe-of-slope south. From this point, the proposed Project

routes the fence southwest over the ridge and away from the Coachella Canal and PGA West golf

course. Alternative A consists of 67,277 linear feet of fencing and removes 130.35 acres of habitat

from PBS access. Alternative A would require access to be granted by numerous private property

owners. During consultations with Reclamation and CVWD, concerns were raised about the

proximity of the Alternative A alignment to the Coachella Canal in the vicinity of PGA West and

the potential for it to impact canal operations and maintenance at this location. Meetings with PGA

West property owners and community and golf course managers also raised concerns about the

alignment’s potential visual impacts and possible effects on golf play. These concerns prompted

modifications to the Alternative A alignment in this area; the modified alignment, routed over the

ridge, was deemed Alternative A2 and was ultimately selected as the proposed Project.

Impacts. Alternative A would remove 130.35 acres of habitat from PBS access. It would require

access permission from public and private property owners along the alignment. This alternative

resulted in the least acres lost to PBS access and is the heart of the proposed Project. The primary

issues associated with this alternative involve compatibility with the Reclamation/CVWD canal

and facilities, including concerns that it may hinder future maintenance and repair. The potential

conflict with PGA West golf course links located between the canal and mountain slopes and visual

effects of the fence were also of concern to some residents at PGA West. The Alternative B

segment planned parallel to but on the west slope of the ridge to the west of PGA West replaces

the subject Alternative A segment along the canal and portions of the PGA West golf course. The

hybrid Alternative A2 combines these two components and further reduces impacts to

Reclamation/CVWD facilities and the PGA West golf course. Therefore, Alternative A was

largely included in Alternative A2 (Proposed Project).

Objectives. Alternative A meets all the Project Objectives. However, during the project planning

process, CVWD and PGA West property owners and community managers raised concerns about

the alignment’s potential impacts in the vicinity of PGA West. It was determined that the location

of the Alternative A alignment could be adjusted to more fully meet the intent of Project Objective

D. The alignment was modified to go over the ridgeline in this vicinity; the revised alignment was

ultimately selected as the Proposed Project.

Findings. Although findings rejecting alternatives in favor of the Project are not required because

the Project, as proposed, would not result in any significant and unavoidable impacts (Pub. Res.

Code, § 21002), for the reasons set forth herein and in the Final EIR, the Commission hereby

rejects Alternative A because it would not fully attain all of the Project objectives. (State CEQA

Guidelines, § 15126.6(c)(i).)

49

3. Alternative B: Ridgeline Alignment

Description. Two variations of Alternative B (Alternatives B and B2) were analyzed. The

Alternative B: Ridgeline Alignment constructs a 8.9± mile fence along the mountain-urban

interface above the toe of slope of the Santa Rosa Mountains (Draft EIR Exhibit I-7), and would

isolate approximately 422.62± acres of habitat that is currently accessible for bighorn sheep use.

The southern portion of Alternative B would be the same as the Proposed Project from its

beginning at the southeast corner of the Quarry development to the north portion of Lake Cahuilla

Recreation Area. From the northeast corner of the Recreation Area and in the vicinity of the

existing shooting range, the alignment would enter steep terrain and then proceed north along the

west side of the ridgeline (consistent with the Proposed Project). The alignment then bears

northeast and downslope to tie into the existing CVWD sheep fence located immediately west of

the Coachella Canal. From the north end of the CVWD fence, Alternative B proceeds due west

and along a ridgeline above SilverRock. The steepness of the terrain in this area requires the

proposed fence route to follow the nearest ridgeline above SilverRock. The alignment then

proceeds northwest along the ridgeline to just upslope of the Tradition, then south along the

approximate toe of slope and then east along the south Tradition boundary to Avenida Bermudas.

During the public scoping period and in meetings with private property owners within the Project

area, concerns were expressed about impacts to private property owners from the proposed fence.

Alternative B would require access to be granted by numerous private property owners. As a

variation of Alternative B, consideration was given to an alignment that relies wholly or in part on

the avoidance of privately-owned lands. This Alternative B2: Ridgeline Alignment: Public Lands

Only alignment involves a 7.7-mile fence route, shown in Draft EIR Exhibit I-8, that includes lands

owned by BLM, CVWD, and the City of La Quinta. Alternative B2 is comprised primarily of

public landowners who are also cooperating partners in this Project. However, fence construction

associated with Alternative B2 is also constrained by local, state and federal land management

plans currently in effect on portions of these lands, including federal wilderness areas. Alternative

B2 increases the amount of habitat that would be isolated from sheep access to 742± acres. This

alignment was analyzed in the event that agreements for access to private property to build the

fence cannot be reached. Draft EIR Exhibit I-8 depicts the property lines associated with public

land ownership. Public lands associated with this project include steep rocky hillside areas where

the fence alignment will vary to accommodate terrain, construction and maintenance.

Impacts. Alternative B would isolate approximately 422.62 acres of habitat from PBS access. It

would require access permission from public and private land owners along the alignment. This

alternative routes the fence along higher elevation slopes (and away from the toe-of-slope) in the

vicinity of the Coachella Canal, PGA West golf course, SilverRock, and Tradition so as to avoid

potential impacts to adjacent residential and golf course areas. The primary issues associated with

this alternative are the need for access permission from private property owners, and that it isolates

more habitat from PBS access than Alternatives A and A2 (Preferred Project).

Alternative B2 avoids privately-owned lands and the need for access permission from private

property owners. To achieve this, the alignment is shifted far upslope and into higher elevation

terrain above PGA West, SilverRock, and Tradition. It substantially reduces potential Project-

related visual impacts in these areas. However, it isolates more habitat from PBS access than

Alternatives A, A2 (Preferred Project), and B.

Objectives: Alternatives B and B2 meet all of the Project Objectives. However, they do not

minimize the area of habitat restricted from PBS access as well as Alternatives A and A2 (Preferred

Project), and therefore, do not fully meet the intent of Project Objectives B and C.

50

Findings. Although findings rejecting alternatives in favor of the Project are not required because

the Project, as proposed, would not result in any significant and unavoidable impacts (Pub. Res.

Code, § 21002), for the reasons set forth herein and in the Final EIR, the Commission hereby

rejects Alternatives B and B2 because they would not fully attain all of the Project objectives.

(State CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.6(c)(i).)

4. Alternative C: Cove to Lake Alignment

Description. The Alternative C: Cove-to-Lake Alignment involves the construction of a 4.69±

mile fence that extends along the southern and western boundaries of the Quarry development, and

then extends northwest through a saddle to the upper La Quinta Cove area. Alternative C (Draft

EIR Exhibit I-9) would isolate 2,397± acres of habitat that is currently accessible for bighorn sheep

use. Alternative C would be the same as Alternative A from its beginning at the southeast corner

of the Quarry development to the northwest section of the Quarry golf course. The alignment

would then proceed from the westernmost extension of the Quarry golf course northwest to the La

Quinta Cove area. The alignment would parallel the existing “La Quinta Cove to Lake Cahuilla

Trail” and would continue north along the toe of slope to the south end of Avenida Bermudas. The

alignment would continue along Avenida Bermudas and skirt CVWD facilities and homes to

ultimately connect to the boundary wall on the southwest corner of the Tradition development.

Depending on the terrain, the alignment in the vicinity of Avenida Bermudas and the La Quinta

Cove may be moved upslope to limit visibility and reduce the loss of PBS habitat.

Impacts. Most environmental impacts associated with Alternative C would generally be less than

those associated with the other "build" alternatives. It would require the shortest fence alignment

and would be the easiest and least costly to construct and monitor. However, the potential loss of

2,397± acres of sheep-accessible habitat that could occur under Alternative C will require

substantial offset or compensation. This may be accomplished by a Transfer of Conservation

Objectives, which requires a Minor Amendment with Wildlife Agency Concurrence consistent

with Section 11.7 of the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan

Implementing Agreement. There is some question whether the CVMSHCP Transfer of

Conservation Objectives alone could supply sufficient mitigation habitat to offset the loss of sheep-

accessible habitat. Although other lands in the mountains Conservation Area might also serve as

mitigation, the availability of sufficient acreage is in doubt. Alternative C will also increase

potential impacts to sensitive cultural resources, but such impacts can be fully mitigated.

Alternative C will also generally have the greatest impact of area-wide aesthetics with the barrier

being highly visible along a much-used area trail connecting the La Quinta Cove with Lake

Cahuilla. Impacts to the aesthetic experience of hiking the Cove to Lake Trail will only occur

under the Alternative C scenario.

Objectives. Alternative C meets all of the Project's objectives. However, compared to all other

alternatives, Alternative C would result in the greatest loss of habitat accessible to PBS. It would

also require more mitigation via Transfer of Conservation Objectives (consistent with the

requirements of Section 6.12.3 of the CVMSHCP and in accordance with Section 20.4.3 of the

Implementing Agreement) or other means to offset the amount of habitat that would become

inaccessible by sheep. Therefore, Alternative C does not fully meet the intent of Project Objectives

B and C.

Findings. Although findings rejecting alternatives in favor of the Project are not required because

the Project, as proposed, would not result in any significant and unavoidable impacts (Pub. Res.

Code, § 21002), for the reasons set forth herein and in the Final EIR, the Commission hereby

rejects Alternative C because it would not fully attain all of the Project objectives. (State CEQA

51

Guidelines, § 15126.6(c)(i).)

5. Environmentally Superior Alternative

CEQA requires that the Commission identify the environmentally superior alternative. The

Commission has determined that the preferred Project alternative, referred to as Alternative A2 in

the Final EIR, is the environmentally superior alternative. Like all the build alternatives, it is

superior to Alternative D (No Project Alternative) because it restricts PBS access to urban lands

and related hazards, consistent with the wildlife management requirements of the CVMSHCP and

Peninsular Bighorn Recovery Plan, and it minimizes potential future incidences of take of PBS, a

federally endangered and state threatened species. Alternative D represents a continuation of

current conditions and would achieve neither of these objectives. The preferred Project alternative

is superior to Alternatives B, B2, and C because it removes substantially fewer acres (241.95) of

habitat from PBS access, compared to Alternatives B (442.62 acres), B2 (741.77 acres), and C

(2,397 acres), while achieving the same benefits of the proposed fence. Although the preferred

Project alternative does remove more acreage from PBS access than Alternative A (130.35 acres),

it is environmentally superior because it avoids potential conflicts with CVWD’s access to and

maintenance and operation of the Coachella Canal, and is responsive to the concerns of PGA West

property owners, while still achieving the same benefits of the proposed fence and meeting all

Project objectives.

SECTION 11

ADOPTION OF MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081.6, the Commission hereby adopts the

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached to this Resolution as Exhibit “A.” Implementation

of the Mitigation Measures contained in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is hereby made

a condition of approval of the Project. In the event of any inconsistencies between the Mitigation Measures

set forth herein and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, the Mitigation Monitoring and

Reporting Program shall control. In the event of any inconsistencies between the Regulatory Requirements

set forth herein, in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and State, federal, and local laws,

the State, federal, and local laws shall control.

SECTION 12

CERTIFICATION OF THE EIR

The Commission hereby finds that it has been presented with the EIR, which it has

reviewed and considered by the Commission and further finds that the EIR is an accurate and objective

statement that has been completed in full compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, and

that the EIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the Commission.

The Commission declares that no evidence of new significant impacts or any new

information of “substantial importance,” as defined by State CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5, has been

received by the Commission after circulation of the Draft EIR that would require recirculation.

Therefore, the Commission hereby certifies the EIR based on the entirety of the record of

proceedings before it.

52

SECTION 13

PROJECT APPROVAL

Based upon the entire administrative record before the Commission, including the above

findings and all written and oral evidence presented during the administrative process, the Commission

hereby approves the Project, also known as Alternative A2, as described in the Final EIR, of the La Quinta

Peninsular Bighorn Sheep Barrier Project.

SECTION 14

CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS

The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which these

Findings have been based are located at the Coachella Valley Conservation Commission at 73-710 Fred

Waring Drive, Suite 200, Palm Desert, California 92260. The custodian for these records is Katie Barrows,

CVCC Director of Environmental Resources. This information is provided in compliance with Public

Resources Code section 21081.6.

SECTION 15

NOTICE OF DETERMINATION

Commission staff shall cause a Notice of Determination to be filed and posted with the

County of Riverside Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk and the State Clearinghouse within five (5)

working days of the Commission's final Project approval.

ADOPTED this 26th day of April, 2019.

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

ATTEST: COACHELLA VALLEY CONSERVATION COMMISSION

_____________________________

Secretary, Commission or

Authorized Agent of the Commission

53

Exhibit A: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Draft 04.11.19

MMRP- 1

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM PROJECT NAME: La Quinta Peninsular Bighorn Sheep Barrier PROJECT LOCATION: City of La Quinta, Riverside County, California SCH No.: 2016021102

This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared in conformance with CEQA Statutes and Guidelines § 21081.6(a)(1) which requires preparation of a reporting or monitoring program for the conditions of project approval that have been adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects. The MMRP is designed to ensure mitigation compliance during project implementation. The following mitigation measures were adopted in order to mitigate potentially significant environmental impacts to less than significant levels. Initials indicate that the mitigation measure has been complied with and implemented.

Environ-mental Issue Area

Mitigation Measure

Method to Demonstrate

Compliance with Mitigation Measure

Responsible

Party

Timing/ Phase

Verification of

Compliance

Remarks

Date Initial ALTERNATIVE A/A2: TOE-OF-SLOPE ALIGNMENT/PROPOSED PROJECT Biological Resources

BIO-1 Prior to the initiation of Project construction, CVCC and representatives of the Wildlife Agencies (CDFW and USFWS) and property owners shall walk and finalize the Alternative A/A2 alignment, which shall also be staked at that time to ensure that the alignment is fixed in the field.

After staking, the final alignment shall be shown on construction plans and shared with Wildlife Agencies and other appropriate parties

CVCC Prior to construction

BIO-2 Biological monitoring shall be conducted of all Project-related disturbances that have the potential to affect special-status biological resources. The biological monitor shall be qualified in the identification of the

Written documentation of findings and action taken shall be submitted to CVCC after each site visit

Biological monitor

During construction

Draft 04.11.19

MMRP- 2

Environ-mental Issue Area

Mitigation Measure

Method to Demonstrate

Compliance with Mitigation Measure

Responsible

Party

Timing/ Phase

Verification of

Compliance

Remarks

Date Initial special-status biological resources potentially occurring along the selected alignment and would have the authority to contact the resource agencies (i.e., USFWS, CDFW, CVCC, etc.) should special-status biological resources be encountered during barrier installation and to temporarily halt any and all Project-related activities that threaten special-status resources in order to avoid and/or minimize impacts. Examples include: bighorn sheep, desert tortoises, burrowing owl, active prairie falcon nests (or any other bird nests) observed in the immediate vicinity of the alignment and that might be affected.

BIO-3 Impact avoidance and/or minimization measures that shall be implemented by the biological monitor include: A. Daily preconstruction clearance

surveys of the portions of the alignment proposed for immediate installation. The biological monitor shall conduct preconstruction clearance surveys immediately prior (i.e., the morning of and/or the day prior) to commencement of daily operations to detect special-status biological resources present within the current work zone.

Written documentation of findings and action taken shall be submitted to CVCC daily

Biological monitor

Daily prior to construction

Draft 04.11.19

MMRP- 3

Environ-mental Issue Area

Mitigation Measure

Method to Demonstrate

Compliance with Mitigation Measure

Responsible

Party

Timing/ Phase

Verification of

Compliance

Remarks

Date Initial Any/all special-status biological resources found in the immediate vicinity would be marked/mapped with a handheld GPS, flagged in the field for avoidance and monitored during construction to ensure that impacts to these resources are avoided and/or minimized to the greatest extent possible.

B. The monitor may issue a temporary stop work order to allow special-status fauna (i.e., desert tortoise, Coachella Valley round-tailed ground squirrel, PBS, etc.) to move away from the active work zone on their own accord without interference from Project personnel.

C. Physical capture, temporary handling and immediate relocation of special-status fauna if appropriate (i.e., desert tortoise, red-diamond rattlesnake, etc.) by an individual with the appropriate permits and experience to do so, after receipt of verbal authorization from respective resource agencies.

D. Implementation of a Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) to inform Project personnel working in the

Written documentation of findings and action taken shall be submitted to CVCC daily Written documentation of action taken shall be submitted to CVCC daily WEAP plan and copies of presentation materials shall be submitted to and approved by CVCC prior to WEAP program implementation; signed personnel agreements shall be provided to CVCC after program implementation Site visits

Biological monitor Biological monitor CVCC CVCC, fencing contractor(s)

Daily prior to and/or during construction Daily prior to and/or during construction Prior to construction During construction

Draft 04.11.19

MMRP- 4

Environ-mental Issue Area

Mitigation Measure

Method to Demonstrate

Compliance with Mitigation Measure

Responsible

Party

Timing/ Phase

Verification of

Compliance

Remarks

Date Initial field of the potential presence of special-status biological resources along the alignment. The WEAP would include photographs, descriptions, conservation status, impact avoidance and minimization measures and penalties associated with unauthorized impacts to the special-status species potentially occurring along the alignment. Project personnel would be required to attend the WEAP and sign an acknowledgment of attendance and agreement to comply with the measures outlined in the WEAP, CVMSHCP and Project permit requirements.

E. Trash containment and proper disposal to avoid attracting scavengers and predators.

BIO-4 In conformance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and to avoid impacts to nesting migratory birds by project activities, the project proponent shall: A. Avoid project-related disturbance

during the nesting season (generally from January 15 through July 31 for the Coachella Valley) or conduct nesting bird surveys by a qualified ornithologist or biologist immediately prior to site

Written documentation of survey findings and actions taken shall be submitted to CVCC Site visits

CVCC CVCC

Prior to site disturbance Prior to site disturbance

Draft 04.11.19

MMRP- 5

Environ-mental Issue Area

Mitigation Measure

Method to Demonstrate

Compliance with Mitigation Measure

Responsible

Party

Timing/ Phase

Verification of

Compliance

Remarks

Date Initial disturbance during the nesting season.

B. In the event active nests are found, exclusionary fencing shall be placed 200 feet around the nest until such time as nestlings have fledged. Nests of raptors and burrowing owls shall be provided a 500-foot buffer.

Northern Red-Diamond Rattlesnake and Flat-tailed Horned Lizard BIO-5 Upon the initiation of construction,

biological monitoring, daily preconstruction clearance surveys, trash control and abatement shall be conducted to avoid attracting and supplementing potential predators to help avoid and minimize project-related impacts (i.e., direct mortality or injury).

Surveys: Written documentation of findings and actions taken shall be submitted to CVCC daily Trash Control: site visits

CVCC, fencing contractor(s), biological monitor

Daily prior to and during construction

Northern Red-Diamond Rattlesnake and Flat-tailed Horned Lizard BIO-6 If these species are found along the

fence alignment, the biological monitor shall have the authority to temporarily halt project-related activities in the immediate vicinity to allow the species to vacate the area and avoid Project impacts. If these species do not vacate the immediate vicinity on their own accord, the biological monitor would have the authority to physically capture, temporarily handle

Written documentation of findings and actions taken shall be submitted to CVCC daily

Biological monitor

Daily prior to and during construction

Draft 04.11.19

MMRP- 6

Environ-mental Issue Area

Mitigation Measure

Method to Demonstrate

Compliance with Mitigation Measure

Responsible

Party

Timing/ Phase

Verification of

Compliance

Remarks

Date Initial and relocate individual animals to nearby areas outside of the Project footprint (with regulatory agency concurrence). The biological monitor shall be trained and qualified in the handling and transport of venomous snakes.

Burrowing Owl BIO-7 In order to ensure that impacts to

burrowing owl are less than significant, at least 14 days before (in accordance with the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation [CDFW 2012]) and not more than 30 days before the commencement of construction, pre-construction owl survey shall be conducted for the three potential burrow sites identified in the burrowing owl report, as set forth as follows:

1. CVCC shall conduct pre-

construction burrow searches and burrowing owl surveys at Habitat Sites 1, 2 and 3, as shown on Figure 1 of the owl report (see Appendix B.3).

2. A final burrowing owl survey shall be conducted at the cited locations within 24 hours of the initiation of ground disturbance activities in accordance with the CDFW 2012 protocol. If no burrowing owls are

Written documentation of findings and action taken shall be submitted to CVCC at conclusion of surveys

CVCC, Project biologist

Prior to construction

Draft 04.11.19

MMRP- 7

Environ-mental Issue Area

Mitigation Measure

Method to Demonstrate

Compliance with Mitigation Measure

Responsible

Party

Timing/ Phase

Verification of

Compliance

Remarks

Date Initial detected during those surveys, implementation of ground disturbance activities may proceed without further consideration of this species, assuming there is no lapse between the surveys and construction because, as the protocol states, “time lapses between Project activities trigger subsequent take avoidance surveys including but not limited to a final survey conducted within 24 hours prior to ground disturbance."

3. If burrowing owls are detected during the take avoidance surveys, avoidance and minimization measures shall be required and the need for mitigation for unavoidable impacts triggered. Avoidance and minimization measures include establishing a buffer zone, installing a visual barrier, implementing burrow exclusion and/or closure techniques, in conformance with CDFW protocol.

Bighorn Sheep BIO-8 Prior to the initiation of fence

construction, CVCC and the Wildlife Agencies shall develop and implement a strategic construction plan that anticipates PBS response to this

Written documentation of construction plan and strategies shall be provided to and approved by Wildlife Agencies

CVCC Prior to construction

Draft 04.11.19

MMRP- 8

Environ-mental Issue Area

Mitigation Measure

Method to Demonstrate

Compliance with Mitigation Measure

Responsible

Party

Timing/ Phase

Verification of

Compliance

Remarks

Date Initial activity and provides for control and management in coordination with potentially affected property owners. This measure will ensure PBS are kept on the proper side of the barrier and that impacts to PBS during construction are minimized.

Bighorn Sheep BIO-9 The final design and alignment

selection shall identify locations for entry gates that provide access necessary to retrieve PBS on the wrong side of the fence and to avoid take of PBS, to maintain the fence and to address other issues within the area bounded by the fence.

Gate locations shall be identified on construction plans

CVCC Prior to construction

Bighorn Sheep BIO-10 Alternative water sources upslope of

the fenced areas should be provided for bighorn sheep in consultation with CDFW, USFWS, CVWD and other landowners. It may be possible to provide water sources in view of the golf courses that would allow the public to see bighorn sheep up on the ridgelines but keep them away from urban areas.

Written documentation about water sources shall be shared with the Wildlife Agencies, CVWD, and other appropriate parties

CVCC Planned prior to construction; implemented during and/or after construction

Bighorn Sheep BIO-11 CVCC shall consult and coordinate

with the USFWS and CDFW to ensure that the fence is constructed during those times of the year that minimize stress to PBS.

Written construction schedules shall be provided to and approved by the Wildlife Agencies

CVCC Prior to construction

Draft 04.11.19

MMRP- 9

Environ-mental Issue Area

Mitigation Measure

Method to Demonstrate

Compliance with Mitigation Measure

Responsible

Party

Timing/ Phase

Verification of

Compliance

Remarks

Date Initial Bighorn Sheep

BIO-12 The CVCC shall mitigate for the loss of PBS access to designated Peninsular bighorn sheep habitat resulting from the implementation of the barrier through a Transfer of Conservation Objectives consistent with the requirements of the CVMSHCP and in accordance with Section 11.7 of the CVMSHCP Implementing Agreement.

Written documentation of compliance with the CVMSHCP shall be provided to the Wildlife Agencies

CVCC Initiated prior to construction

BIO-13 Prior to the completion of fence construction, CVCC and its partner agencies shall prepare a post-construction PBS monitoring plan for this portion of Recovery Region 3 that will provide for ongoing evaluation of bighorn sheep movements and population effects associated with the fence.

A written monitoring plan shall be provided to and approved by the Wildlife Agencies

CVCC Prior to completion of construction

BIO-14 Prior to fence construction, CVCC shall confer and coordinate with the wildlife agencies, Bighorn Institute, property owners and/or managers, and other parties, as appropriate, to develop and implement a post-construction strategic management plan that addresses: 1) hazing of PBS that become entrapped on the urban side of the fence, including establishment of a procedural process, methods of herding bighorn sheep, qualifications and availability

A written post-construction strategic management plan shall be provided to and approved by the Wildlife Agencies

CVCC Prior to construction

Draft 04.11.19

MMRP- 10

Environ-mental Issue Area

Mitigation Measure

Method to Demonstrate

Compliance with Mitigation Measure

Responsible

Party

Timing/ Phase

Verification of

Compliance

Remarks

Date Initial of personnel, timelines for execution, funding, and methods to minimize disturbance to bighorn sheep, and 2) ongoing fence inspection and maintenance, including identification of responsible parties, timelines, funding, access, and emergency plans for repair or hazing should PBS breach the fence.

Cultural Resources

CUL-1 Project impacts to Sites 33-024893, 33-024894 and 33-002826 could be potentially significant, given the substantial archaeological discoveries in and near the APE. Therefore, archaeological monitoring shall be implemented during ground-disturbing activities in the area of these sites in coordination with the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians and the Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians. The monitor shall be authorized to stop ground disturbance or other construction activities in proximity to potential resources, and to initiate data recovery excavations and/or detailed recordation of archaeological features before construction can resume at this location.

Monitoring plans shall be coordinated with ACBCI and TMDCI prior to ground disturbance. Written documentation of findings and actions taken shall be submitted to CVCC and shared with ACBCI and TMDCI during and/or after monitoring activities.

Archaeological monitor

During ground-disturbing activities

CUL-2 In order to avoid impacts to Site 33-000626, the Alternative A fence alignment in this area shall remain outside or at most on the edge of this

Final alignment shall be shown on construction plans

CVCC and Archaeological monitor

Project planning phase, and prior to and

Draft 04.11.19

MMRP- 11

Environ-mental Issue Area

Mitigation Measure

Method to Demonstrate

Compliance with Mitigation Measure

Responsible

Party

Timing/ Phase

Verification of

Compliance

Remarks

Date Initial site. An archaeological monitor shall be present when the final alignment is determined and the fence constructed in this area.

during construction

CUL-3 To avoid impacts to Site 33-002823, the Alternative A fence alignment in this area shall avoid and remain outside of this site. An archaeological monitor shall be present when the final alignment is determined and the fence constructed in this area. If physical impacts on this site cannot be avoided, a Phase II survey, data recovery excavations and/or detailed recordation of archaeological features, will be required and documentation completed before construction can begin in this location.

Final alignment shall be shown on construction plans Written documentation of Phase II survey (if needed) shall be submitted to CVCC and shared with ACBCI and TMDCI

CVCC and Archaeological monitor

Project planning phase, and prior to and during construction

CUL-4 Although the potential for significant impacts to Site 33-002826 is low, archaeological monitoring shall be implemented during ground-disturbing activities in the area of this site in coordination with the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians and the Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians. The monitor shall be authorized to stop ground disturbance or other construction activities in proximity to potential resources, and to initiate data recovery excavations and/or detailed recordation of

Monitoring plans shall be coordinated with ACBCI and TMDCI prior to ground disturbance. Written documentation of findings and actions taken shall be submitted to CVCC and shared with ACBCI and TMDCI during and/or after monitoring activities.

Archaeological monitor

During ground-disturbing activities

Draft 04.11.19

MMRP- 12

Environ-mental Issue Area

Mitigation Measure

Method to Demonstrate

Compliance with Mitigation Measure

Responsible

Party

Timing/ Phase

Verification of

Compliance

Remarks

Date Initial archaeological features before construction can resume at this location.

CUL-5 To avoid impacts to Site 33-002827, the proposed Alternative A alignment in this area shall avoid this site. An archaeological monitor shall be present when the final alignment is determined and the fence constructed in this area. If physical impacts on this site cannot be avoided, a Phase II survey, data recovery excavations and/or detailed recordation of archaeological features, will be required and documentation completed before construction can begin in this location.

Final alignment shall be shown on construction plans. Written documentation of Phase II survey (if needed) shall be submitted to CVCC and shared with ACBCI and TMDCI.

CVCC and Archaeological monitor

Project planning phase, and prior to and during construction

CUL-6 Should unknown archeological or tribal materials become unearthed, the qualified archeologist monitoring construction shall prepare a findings report summarizing the methods and results of the monitoring program, including an itemized inventory and a detailed analysis of recovered artifacts upon completion of the field and laboratory work. The report shall include an interpretation of the cultural activities represented by the artifacts and a discussion of the significance of all archaeological or tribal finds. The submittal of the report to the CVCC and appropriate

Written report shall be submitted to CVCC, ACBCI, TMDCI, and other responsible agencies

Archaeological monitor

During construction

Draft 04.11.19

MMRP- 13

Environ-mental Issue Area

Mitigation Measure

Method to Demonstrate

Compliance with Mitigation Measure

Responsible

Party

Timing/ Phase

Verification of

Compliance

Remarks

Date Initial responsible agencies, along with final curation of the recovered artifacts, will signify completion of the monitoring program and, barring unexpected findings of extraordinary significance, the mitigation of potential project impacts on cultural and tribal resources.

CUL-7 Should buried human remains be discovered during project construction, in accordance with State law, the County coroner shall be contacted. If the remains are determined to be of Native American heritage, the Native American Heritage Commission and the appropriate local Native American Tribe shall be contacted to determine the Most Likely Descendant (MLD). CVCC shall work with the designated MLD to determine the final disposition of the remains.

Written documentation of correspondence shall be provided to CVCC, ACBCI, TMDCI, and other responsible agencies

CVCC and Archaeological monitor

During construction

CUL-8 To avoid impacts to Site 33-019788, the proposed Alternative A alignment in this area shall be moved downslope to avoid this site, hugging the existing cart path at this location. An archaeological monitor shall be present when the final alignment is determined and the fence constructed in this area.

Final alignment shall be shown on construction plans.

CVCC and Archaeological monitor

Project planning phase, and prior to and during construction

CUL-9 In the unlikely event paleontological resources are encountered, the

Written documentation of findings and actions

Archaeological monitor

During construction

Draft 04.11.19

MMRP- 14

Environ-mental Issue Area

Mitigation Measure

Method to Demonstrate

Compliance with Mitigation Measure

Responsible

Party

Timing/ Phase

Verification of

Compliance

Remarks

Date Initial cultural resources monitor shall, upon discovery of any fossils, quickly salvage them as they are unearthed to avoid construction delays. The monitor shall remove samples of sediments that are likely to contain the remains of small fossil invertebrates and vertebrates. The monitor shall have the authority to temporarily halt or divert grading and excavation equipment to allow for removal of abundant or large specimens.

taken shall be provided to CVCC

Noise N-1 Project construction activities shall only occur between the permitted hours of the La Quinta Municipal Code. The project construction supervisor shall ensure compliance.

Site visits Construction supervisor

Prior to and during construction

N-2 During all project site construction, all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers, consistent with manufacturers’ standards. The construction supervisor shall place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from the noise-sensitive receivers nearest the Project site.

Site visits Construction supervisor

Prior to and during construction

N-3 To the greatest extent practicable, the project construction supervisor shall limit the use of noise generating construction equipment in proximity

Site visits Construction supervisor

Prior to and during construction

Draft 04.11.19

MMRP- 15

Environ-mental Issue Area

Mitigation Measure

Method to Demonstrate

Compliance with Mitigation Measure

Responsible

Party

Timing/ Phase

Verification of

Compliance

Remarks

Date Initial to residences, and shall rely on hand tools to avoid or minimize noise impacts to these sensitive receptors.

N-4 Prior to the initiation of helicopter flights, the construction supervisor shall coordinate with the helicopter operator and shall plan flight routes that minimize the exposure of local residents and park users to helicopter noise.

Site visits Construction supervisor

Prior to helicopter operations

N-5 The construction supervisor shall limit haul truck deliveries to the same hours specified for construction equipment by the La Quinta Municipal Code.

Site visits Construction supervisor

Prior to and during construction

ALTERNATIVE B/B2: RIDGELINE ALIGNMENT Biological Resources

BIO-1 Prior to the initiation of Project construction, CVCC and representatives of the Wildlife Agencies (CDFW and USFWS) and property owners shall walk and finalize the Alternative B alignment, which shall also be staked at that time to ensure that the alignment is fixed in the field.

After staking, the final alignment shall be shown on construction plans and shared with Wildlife Agencies and other appropriate parties

CVCC Prior to construction

BIO-2 Biological monitoring shall be conducted of all Project-related disturbances that have the potential to affect special-status biological resources. The biological monitor shall be qualified in the identification of the special-status biological resources

Written documentation of findings and action taken shall be submitted to CVCC after each site visit

Biological monitor

During construction

Draft 04.11.19

MMRP- 16

Environ-mental Issue Area

Mitigation Measure

Method to Demonstrate

Compliance with Mitigation Measure

Responsible

Party

Timing/ Phase

Verification of

Compliance

Remarks

Date Initial potentially occurring along the selected alignment and would have the authority to contact the resource agencies (i.e., USFWS, CDFW, CVCC, etc.) should special-status biological resources be encountered during barrier installation and to temporarily halt any and all Project-related activities that threaten special-status resources in order to avoid and/or minimize impacts. Examples include: bighorn sheep, desert tortoises, flat-tailed horned lizard, burrowing owl, active prairie falcon nests (or any other bird nests; also see BIO-4, below) observed in the immediate vicinity of the alignment and that might be affected.

BIO-3 Impact avoidance and/or minimization measures that shall be implemented by the biological monitor include: A. Daily preconstruction clearance

surveys of the portions of the alignment proposed for immediate installation. The biological monitor shall conduct preconstruction clearance surveys immediately prior (i.e., the morning of and/or the day prior) to commencement of daily operations to detect special-status biological resources present within the current work zone.

Written documentation of findings and action taken shall be submitted to CVCC daily

Biological monitor

Daily prior to construction

Draft 04.11.19

MMRP- 17

Environ-mental Issue Area

Mitigation Measure

Method to Demonstrate

Compliance with Mitigation Measure

Responsible

Party

Timing/ Phase

Verification of

Compliance

Remarks

Date Initial Any/all special-status biological resources found in the immediate vicinity would be marked/mapped with a handheld GPS, flagged in the field for avoidance and monitored during construction to ensure that impacts to these resources are avoided and/or minimized to the greatest extent possible.

B. The monitor may issue a temporary stop work order to allow special-status fauna (i.e., desert tortoise, Coachella Valley round-tailed ground squirrel, PBS, etc.) to move away from the active work zone on their own accord without interference from Project personnel.

C. Physical capture, temporary handling and immediate relocation of special-status fauna if appropriate (i.e., desert tortoise, red-diamond rattlesnake, etc.) by an individual with the appropriate permits and experience to do so, after receipt of verbal authorization from respective resource agencies.

D. Implementation of a Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) to inform Project personnel working in the

Written documentation of findings and action taken shall be submitted to CVCC daily Written documentation of action taken shall be submitted to CVCC daily WEAP plan and copies of presentation materials shall be submitted to and approved by CVCC prior to WEAP program implementation; signed personnel agreements shall be provided to CVCC after program implementation Site visits

Biological monitor Biological monitor CVCC CVCC, fencing contractor(s)

Daily prior to and/or during construction Daily prior to and/or during construction Prior to construction During construction

Draft 04.11.19

MMRP- 18

Environ-mental Issue Area

Mitigation Measure

Method to Demonstrate

Compliance with Mitigation Measure

Responsible

Party

Timing/ Phase

Verification of

Compliance

Remarks

Date Initial field of the potential presence of special-status biological resources along the alignment. The WEAP would include photographs, descriptions, conservation status, impact avoidance and minimization measures proposed and penalties associated with unauthorized impacts to the special-status species potentially occurring along the alignment. Project personnel would be required to attend the WEAP and sign an acknowledgment of attendance and agreement to comply with the measures outlined in the WEAP, CVMSHCP and Project permit requirements.

E. Trash containment and proper disposal to avoid attracting scavengers and predators.

BIO-4 In conformance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and to avoid impacts to nesting migratory birds by project activities, the project proponent shall: A. Avoid project-related disturbance

during the nesting season (generally from January 15 through July 31 for the Coachella Valley) or conduct nesting bird surveys by a qualified ornithologist or biologist immediately prior to site

Written documentation of survey findings and actions taken shall be submitted to CVCC Site visits

CVCC CVCC

Prior to site disturbance Prior to site disturbance

Draft 04.11.19

MMRP- 19

Environ-mental Issue Area

Mitigation Measure

Method to Demonstrate

Compliance with Mitigation Measure

Responsible

Party

Timing/ Phase

Verification of

Compliance

Remarks

Date Initial disturbance during the nesting season.

B. In the event active nests are found, exclusionary fencing shall be placed 200 feet around the nest until such time as nestlings have fledged. Nests of raptors and burrowing owls shall be provided a 500-foot buffer.

Northern Red-Diamond Rattlesnake and Flat-tailed Horned Lizard BIO-5 Upon the initiation of construction,

biological monitoring, daily preconstruction clearance surveys, trash control and abatement shall be conducted to avoid attracting and supplementing potential predators to help avoid and minimize project-related impacts (i.e., direct mortality or injury).

Surveys: Written documentation of findings and actions taken shall be submitted to CVCC daily Trash Control: site visits

CVCC, fencing contractor(s), biological monitor

Daily prior to and during construction

Northern Red-Diamond Rattlesnake and Flat-tailed Horned Lizard BIO-6 If these species are found along the

fence alignment, the biological monitor shall have the authority to temporarily halt project-related activities in the immediate vicinity to allow the species to vacate the area and avoid Project impacts. If these species do not vacate the immediate vicinity on their own accord, the biological monitor would have the authority to physically capture, temporarily handle

Written documentation of findings and actions taken shall be submitted to CVCC daily

Biological monitor

Daily prior to and during construction

Draft 04.11.19

MMRP- 20

Environ-mental Issue Area

Mitigation Measure

Method to Demonstrate

Compliance with Mitigation Measure

Responsible

Party

Timing/ Phase

Verification of

Compliance

Remarks

Date Initial and relocate individual animals to nearby areas outside of the Project footprint (with regulatory agency concurrence). The biological monitor shall be trained and qualified in the handling and transport of venomous snakes.

Burrowing Owl BIO-7 In order to ensure that impacts to

burrowing owl are less than significant, at least 14 days before (in accordance with the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation [CDFW 2012]) and not more than 30 days before the commencement of construction, pre-construction owl survey shall be conducted for the three potential burrow sites identified in the burrowing owl report, as set forth as follows: 1. CVCC shall conduct a pre-

construction burrow search and burrowing owl survey at Habitat Site 3, as shown on Figure 1 of the owl report (see Appendix B.3).

2. A final burrowing owl survey shall be conducted at the cited location within 24 hours of the initiation of ground disturbance activities in accordance with the CDFW 2012 protocol. If no burrowing owls are detected during those surveys, implementation of ground

Written documentation of findings and action taken shall be submitted to CVCC at conclusion of surveys

CVCC, Project biologist

Prior to construction

Draft 04.11.19

MMRP- 21

Environ-mental Issue Area

Mitigation Measure

Method to Demonstrate

Compliance with Mitigation Measure

Responsible

Party

Timing/ Phase

Verification of

Compliance

Remarks

Date Initial disturbance activities may proceed without further consideration of this species, assuming there is no lapse between the surveys and construction because, as the protocol states, “time lapses between Project activities trigger subsequent take avoidance surveys including but not limited to a final survey conducted within 24 hours prior to ground disturbance."

3. If burrowing owls are detected during the take avoidance surveys, avoidance and minimization measures shall be required and the need for mitigation for unavoidable impacts triggered. Avoidance and minimization measures include: establishing a buffer zone, installing a visual barrier, implementing burrow exclusion and/or closure techniques, in conformance with CDFW protocol.

Bighorn Sheep BIO-8 Prior to the initiation of fence

construction, CVCC and the Wildlife Agencies shall develop and implement a strategic construction plan that anticipates PBS response to this activity and provides for control and management in coordination

Written documentation of construction plan and strategies shall be provided to and approved by Wildlife Agencies

CVCC Prior to construction

Draft 04.11.19

MMRP- 22

Environ-mental Issue Area

Mitigation Measure

Method to Demonstrate

Compliance with Mitigation Measure

Responsible

Party

Timing/ Phase

Verification of

Compliance

Remarks

Date Initial with potentially affected property owners. This measure will ensure PBS are kept on the proper side of the barrier and that impacts to PBS during construction are minimized.

Bighorn Sheep BIO-9 The final design and alignment

selection shall identify locations for entry gates that provide access necessary to retrieve PBS on the wrong side of the fence and to avoid take of PBS, to maintain the fence and to address other issues within the area bounded by the fence.

Gate locations shall be identified on construction plans

CVCC Prior to construction

Bighorn Sheep BIO-10 Alternative water sources upslope of

the fenced areas should be provided for bighorn sheep in consultation with CDFW, USFWS, CVWD and other landowners. It may be possible to provide water sources in view of the golf courses that would allow the public to see bighorn sheep up on the ridgelines but keep them away from urban areas.

Written documentation about water sources shall be shared with the Wildlife Agencies, CVWD, and other appropriate parties

CVCC Planned prior to construction; implemented during and/or after construction

Bighorn Sheep BIO-11 CVCC shall consult and coordinate

with the USFWS and CDFW to ensure that the fence is constructed during those times of the year that minimize stress to PBS.

Written construction schedules shall be provided to and approved by the Wildlife Agencies

CVCC Prior to construction

Draft 04.11.19

MMRP- 23

Environ-mental Issue Area

Mitigation Measure

Method to Demonstrate

Compliance with Mitigation Measure

Responsible

Party

Timing/ Phase

Verification of

Compliance

Remarks

Date Initial Bighorn Sheep

BIO-12 The CVCC shall mitigate for the loss of PBS access to designated Peninsular bighorn sheep habitat resulting from the implementation of the barrier through a Transfer of Conservation Objectives consistent with the requirements of the CVMSHCP and in accordance with Section 11.7 of the CVMSHCP Implementing Agreement.

Written documentation of compliance with the CVMSHCP shall be provided to the Wildlife Agencies

CVCC Initiated prior to construction

BIO-13 Prior to the completion of fence construction, CVCC and its partner agencies shall prepare a post-construction PBS monitoring plan for this portion of Recovery Region 3 that will provide for ongoing evaluation of bighorn sheep movements and population effects associated with the fence.

A written monitoring plan shall be provided to and approved by the Wildlife Agencies

CVCC Prior to completion of construction

BIO-14 Prior to fence construction, CVCC shall confer and coordinate with the wildlife agencies, Bighorn Institute, property owners and/or managers, and other parties, as appropriate, to develop and implement a post-construction strategic management plan that addresses: 1) hazing of PBS that become entrapped on the urban side of the fence, including establishment of a procedural process, methods of herding bighorn sheep, qualifications and

A written post-construction strategic management plan shall be provided to and approved by the Wildlife Agencies

CVCC Prior to construction

Draft 04.11.19

MMRP- 24

Environ-mental Issue Area

Mitigation Measure

Method to Demonstrate

Compliance with Mitigation Measure

Responsible

Party

Timing/ Phase

Verification of

Compliance

Remarks

Date Initial availability of personnel, timelines for execution, funding, and methods to minimize disturbance to bighorn sheep, and 2) ongoing fence inspection and maintenance, including identification of responsible parties, timelines, funding, access, and emergency plans for repair or hazing should PBS breach the fence.

Cultural Resources

CUL-1 To mitigate potential impacts to Sites 33-024893, 33-024894 and 33-002826, archaeological monitoring shall be implemented during ground-disturbing activities in the area of these sites in coordination with the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians and the Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians. The monitor shall be authorized to stop ground disturbance or other construction activities in proximity to potential resources, and to initiate data recovery excavations and/or detailed recordation of archaeological features before construction can resume at this location.

Monitoring plans shall be coordinated with ACBCI and TMDCI prior to ground disturbance. Written documentation of findings and actions taken shall be submitted to CVCC and shared with ACBCI and TMDCI during and/or after monitoring activities.

Archaeological monitor

During ground-disturbing activities

CUL-2 In order to avoid impacts to Site 33-000626, the Alternative B fence alignment in this area shall hug the existing cart path and remain outside or at most on the edge of this site.

Final alignment shall be shown on construction plans

CVCC and Archaeological monitor

Project planning phase, and prior to and

Draft 04.11.19

MMRP- 25

Environ-mental Issue Area

Mitigation Measure

Method to Demonstrate

Compliance with Mitigation Measure

Responsible

Party

Timing/ Phase

Verification of

Compliance

Remarks

Date Initial An archaeological monitor shall be present when the final alignment is determined and the fence constructed in this area.

during construction

CUL-3 To avoid impacts to Site 33-002823, the Alternative B fence alignment in this area shall avoid and remain outside of this site. An archaeological monitor shall be present when the final alignment is determined and the fence constructed in this area. If physical impacts on this site cannot be avoided, a Phase II survey, data recovery excavations and/or detailed recordation of archaeological features, will be required and documentation completed before construction can begin in this location.

Final alignment shall be shown on construction plans Written documentation of Phase II survey (if needed) shall be submitted to CVCC and shared with ACBCI and TMDCI

CVCC and Archaeological monitor

Project planning phase, and prior to and during construction

CUL-4 To mitigate potential impacts to Site 33-002826 to less than significant, archaeological monitoring shall be implemented during ground-disturbing activities in the area of this site in coordination with the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians and the Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians. The monitor shall be authorized to stop ground disturbance or other construction activities in proximity to potential resources, and to initiate

Monitoring plans shall be coordinated with ACBCI and TMDCI prior to ground disturbance. Written documentation of findings and actions taken shall be submitted to CVCC and shared with ACBCI and TMDCI

Archaeological monitor

During ground-disturbing activities

Draft 04.11.19

MMRP- 26

Environ-mental Issue Area

Mitigation Measure

Method to Demonstrate

Compliance with Mitigation Measure

Responsible

Party

Timing/ Phase

Verification of

Compliance

Remarks

Date Initial data recovery excavations and/or detailed recordation of archaeological features before construction can resume at this location.

during and/or after monitoring activities.

CUL-5 To avoid impacts to Site 33-002827 the proposed Alternative B alignment in this area shall be moved upslope to avoid this site. An archaeological monitor shall be present when the final alignment is determined and the fence constructed in this area. If physical impacts on this site cannot be avoided, a Phase II survey, data recovery excavations and/or detailed recordation of archaeological features, will be required and documentation completed before construction can begin in this location.

Final alignment shall be shown on construction plans. Written documentation of Phase II survey (if needed) shall be submitted to CVCC and shared with ACBCI and TMDCI.

CVCC and Archaeological monitor

Project planning phase, and prior to and during construction

CUL-6 Should unknown archeological or tribal materials become unearthed, the qualified archeologist monitoring construction shall prepare a findings report summarizing the methods and results of the monitoring program, including an itemized inventory and a detailed analysis of recovered artifacts upon completion of the field and laboratory work. The report shall include an interpretation

Written report shall be submitted to CVCC, ACBCI, TMDCI, and other responsible agencies

Archaeological monitor

During construction

Draft 04.11.19

MMRP- 27

Environ-mental Issue Area

Mitigation Measure

Method to Demonstrate

Compliance with Mitigation Measure

Responsible

Party

Timing/ Phase

Verification of

Compliance

Remarks

Date Initial of the cultural activities represented by the artifacts and a discussion of the significance of all archaeological or tribal finds. The submittal of the report to the CVCC and appropriate responsible agencies, along with final curation of the recovered artifacts, will signify completion of the monitoring program and, barring unexpected findings of extraordinary significance, the mitigation of potential project impacts on cultural and tribal resources.

CUL-7 Should buried human remains be discovered during project construction, in accordance with State law, the County coroner shall be contacted. If the remains are determined to be of Native American heritage, the Native American Heritage Commission and the appropriate local Native American Tribe shall be contacted to determine the Most Likely Descendant (MLD). CVCC shall work with the designated MLD to determine the final disposition of the remains.

Written documentation of correspondence shall be provided to CVCC, ACBCI, TMDCI, and other responsible agencies

CVCC and Archaeological monitor

During construction

CUL-8 To avoid impacts to Site 33-019788, the proposed Alternative B alignment in this area, near the

Final alignment shall be shown on construction plans.

CVCC and Archaeological monitor

Project planning phase, and

Draft 04.11.19

MMRP- 28

Environ-mental Issue Area

Mitigation Measure

Method to Demonstrate

Compliance with Mitigation Measure

Responsible

Party

Timing/ Phase

Verification of

Compliance

Remarks

Date Initial existing CVWD fence, shall extend a short distance along the toe-of-slope to the northwest and away from this site before proceeding into steeper mountainous terrain. An archaeological monitor shall be present when the final alignment is determined.

prior to and during construction

CUL-9 In the unlikely event paleontological resources are encountered, the cultural resources monitor shall, upon discovery of any fossils, quickly salvage them as they are unearthed to avoid construction delays. The monitor shall remove samples of sediments that are likely to contain the remains of small fossil invertebrates and vertebrates. The monitor shall have the authority to temporarily halt or divert grading and excavation equipment to allow for removal of abundant or large specimens.

Written documentation of findings and actions taken shall be provided to CVCC

Archaeological monitor

During construction

Noise The noise mitigation measures shown for Alternatives A/A2, above, shall be implemented for Alternative B.

Same as Alternatives A/A2, above.

Same as Alternatives A/A2, above.

Same as Alternatives A/A2, above.

ALTERNATIVE C: COVE TO LAKE ALIGNMENT Biological Resources

BIO-1 Prior to the initiation of Project construction, CVCC and representatives of the Wildlife Agencies (CDFW and USFWS) and property owners shall walk and

After staking, the final alignment shall be shown on construction plans and shared with Wildlife Agencies and

CVCC Prior to construction

Draft 04.11.19

MMRP- 29

Environ-mental Issue Area

Mitigation Measure

Method to Demonstrate

Compliance with Mitigation Measure

Responsible

Party

Timing/ Phase

Verification of

Compliance

Remarks

Date Initial finalize the Alternative C alignment, which shall also be staked at that time to ensure that the alignment is fixed in the field.

other appropriate parties

BIO-2 Biological monitoring shall be conducted of all Project-related disturbances that have the potential to affect special-status biological resources. The biological monitor shall be qualified in the identification of the special-status biological resources potentially occurring along the selected alignment and would have the authority to contact the resource agencies (i.e., USFWS, CDFW, CVCC, etc.) should special-status biological resources be encountered during barrier installation and to temporarily halt any and all Project-related activities that threaten special-status resources in order to avoid and/or minimize impacts. Examples include: bighorn sheep, desert tortoises, flat-tailed horned lizard, burrowing owl, active prairie falcon nests (or any other bird nests; also see BIO-4, below) observed in the immediate vicinity of the alignment and that might be affected.

Written documentation of findings and action taken shall be submitted to CVCC after each site visit

Biological monitor

During construction

BIO-3 Impact avoidance and/or minimization measures that shall be implemented by the biological monitor include:

Written documentation of findings and action

Biological monitor

Draft 04.11.19

MMRP- 30

Environ-mental Issue Area

Mitigation Measure

Method to Demonstrate

Compliance with Mitigation Measure

Responsible

Party

Timing/ Phase

Verification of

Compliance

Remarks

Date Initial A. Daily preconstruction clearance

surveys of the portions of the alignment proposed for immediate installation. The biological monitor shall conduct preconstruction clearance surveys immediately prior (i.e., the morning of and/or the day prior) to commencement of daily operations to detect special-status biological resources present within the current work zone. Any/all special-status biological resources found in the immediate vicinity would be marked/mapped with a handheld GPS, flagged in the field for avoidance and monitored during construction to ensure that impacts to these resources are avoided and/or minimized to the greatest extent possible.

B. The monitor may issue a temporary stop work order to allow special-status fauna (i.e., desert tortoise, Coachella Valley round-tailed ground squirrel, PBS, etc.) to move away from the active work zone on their own accord without interference from Project personnel.

C. Physical capture, temporary handling and immediate relocation

taken shall be submitted to CVCC daily Written documentation of findings and action taken shall be submitted to CVCC daily Written documentation of action taken shall be submitted to CVCC daily WEAP plan and copies of presentation materials shall be submitted to and approved by CVCC prior to WEAP program implementation; signed

Biological monitor Biological monitor CVCC

Daily prior to construction Daily prior to and/or during construction Daily prior to and/or during construction Prior to construction

Draft 04.11.19

MMRP- 31

Environ-mental Issue Area

Mitigation Measure

Method to Demonstrate

Compliance with Mitigation Measure

Responsible

Party

Timing/ Phase

Verification of

Compliance

Remarks

Date Initial of special-status fauna if appropriate (i.e., desert tortoise, red-diamond rattlesnake, etc.) by an individual with the appropriate permits and experience to do so, after receipt of verbal authorization from respective resource agencies.

D. Implementation of a Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) to inform Project personnel working in the field of the potential presence of special-status biological resources along the alignment. The WEAP would include photographs, descriptions, conservation status, impact avoidance and minimization measures proposed and penalties associated with unauthorized impacts to the special-status species potentially occurring along the alignment. Project personnel would be required to attend the WEAP and sign an acknowledgment of attendance and agreement to comply with the measures outlined in the WEAP, CVMSHCP and Project permit requirements.

E. Trash containment and proper disposal to avoid attracting scavengers and predators.

personnel agreements shall be provided to CVCC after program implementation Site visits

CVCC, fencing contractor(s)

During construction

Draft 04.11.19

MMRP- 32

Environ-mental Issue Area

Mitigation Measure

Method to Demonstrate

Compliance with Mitigation Measure

Responsible

Party

Timing/ Phase

Verification of

Compliance

Remarks

Date Initial BIO-4 In conformance with the Migratory

Bird Treaty Act and to avoid impacts to nesting migratory birds by project activities, the project proponent shall: A. Avoid project-related disturbance

during the nesting season (generally from January 15 through July 31 for the Coachella Valley) or conduct nesting bird surveys by a qualified ornithologist or biologist immediately prior to site disturbance during the nesting season.

B. In the event active nests are found, exclusionary fencing shall be placed 200 feet around the nest until such time as nestlings have fledged. Nests of raptors and burrowing owls shall be provided a 500-foot buffer.

Written documentation of survey findings and actions taken shall be submitted to CVCC Site visits

CVCC CVCC

Prior to site disturbance Prior to site disturbance

Northern Red-Diamond Rattlesnake and Flat-tailed Horned Lizard BIO-5 Upon the initiation of construction,

biological monitoring, daily preconstruction clearance surveys, trash control and abatement shall be conducted to avoid attracting and supplementing potential predators to help avoid and minimize project-related impacts (i.e., direct mortality or injury).

Surveys: Written documentation of findings and actions taken shall be submitted to CVCC daily Trash Control: site visits

CVCC, fencing contractor(s), biological monitor

Daily prior to and during construction

Draft 04.11.19

MMRP- 33

Environ-mental Issue Area

Mitigation Measure

Method to Demonstrate

Compliance with Mitigation Measure

Responsible

Party

Timing/ Phase

Verification of

Compliance

Remarks

Date Initial Northern Red-Diamond Rattlesnake and Flat-

tailed Horned Lizard BIO-6 If these species are found along the

fence alignment, the biological monitor shall have the authority to temporarily halt project-related activities in the immediate vicinity to allow the species to vacate the area and avoid Project impacts. If these species do not vacate the immediate vicinity on their own accord, the biological monitor would have the authority to physically capture, temporarily handle and relocate individual animals to nearby areas outside of the Project footprint (with regulatory agency concurrence). The biological monitor shall be trained and qualified in the handling and transport of venomous snakes.

Written documentation of findings and actions taken shall be submitted to CVCC daily

Biological monitor

Daily prior to and during construction

Burrowing Owl BIO-7 In order to ensure that impacts to

burrowing owl are less than significant, at least 14 days before (in accordance with the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation [CDFW 2012]) and not more than 30 days before the commencement of construction, pre-construction owl survey shall be conducted for the three potential burrow sites identified in the burrowing owl report, as set forth as follows:

Written documentation of findings and action taken shall be submitted to CVCC at conclusion of surveys

CVCC, Project biologist

Prior to construction

Draft 04.11.19

MMRP- 34

Environ-mental Issue Area

Mitigation Measure

Method to Demonstrate

Compliance with Mitigation Measure

Responsible

Party

Timing/ Phase

Verification of

Compliance

Remarks

Date Initial

1. CVCC shall conduct a pre-construction burrow search and burrowing owl survey at Habitat Site 3, as shown on Figure 1 of the owl report (see Appendix B.3).

2. A final burrowing owl survey shall be conducted at the cited location within 24 hours of the initiation of ground disturbance activities in accordance with the CDFW 2012 protocol. If no burrowing owls are detected during those surveys, implementation of ground disturbance activities may proceed without further consideration of this species, assuming there is no lapse between the surveys and construction because, as the protocol states, “time lapses between Project activities trigger subsequent take avoidance surveys including but not limited to a final survey conducted within 24 hours prior to ground disturbance."

3. If burrowing owls are detected during the take avoidance surveys, avoidance and minimization measures shall be required and the need for mitigation for unavoidable impacts triggered. Avoidance and minimization

Draft 04.11.19

MMRP- 35

Environ-mental Issue Area

Mitigation Measure

Method to Demonstrate

Compliance with Mitigation Measure

Responsible

Party

Timing/ Phase

Verification of

Compliance

Remarks

Date Initial measures include: establishing a buffer zone, installing a visual barrier, implementing burrow exclusion and/or closure techniques, in conformance with CDFW protocol.

Bighorn Sheep BIO-8 Prior to the initiation of fence

construction, CVCC and the Wildlife Agencies shall develop and implement a strategic construction plan that anticipates PBS response to this activity and provides for control and management in coordination with potentially affected property owners. This measure will ensure PBS are kept on the proper side of the barrier and that impacts to PBS during construction are minimized.

Written documentation of construction plan and strategies shall be provided to and approved by Wildlife Agencies

CVCC Prior to construction

Bighorn Sheep BIO-9 The final design and alignment

selection shall identify locations for entry gates that provide access necessary to retrieve PBS on the wrong side of the fence and to avoid take of PBS, to maintain the fence and to address other issues within the area bounded by the fence.

Gate locations shall be identified on construction plans

CVCC Prior to construction

Bighorn Sheep BIO-10 Alternative water sources outside the

fenced areas should be provided for bighorn sheep in consultation with

Written documentation about water sources shall be shared with the Wildlife Agencies,

CVCC Planned prior to construction; implemented during

Draft 04.11.19

MMRP- 36

Environ-mental Issue Area

Mitigation Measure

Method to Demonstrate

Compliance with Mitigation Measure

Responsible

Party

Timing/ Phase

Verification of

Compliance

Remarks

Date Initial CDFW, USFWS, CVWD and other landowners.

CVWD, and other appropriate parties

and/or after construction

Bighorn Sheep BIO-11 CVCC shall consult and coordinate

with the USFWS and CDFW to ensure that the fence is constructed during those times of the year that minimize stress to PBS.

Written construction schedules shall be provided to and approved by the Wildlife Agencies

CVCC Prior to construction

Bighorn Sheep BIO-12 The CVCC shall mitigate for the loss

of PBS access to designated Peninsular bighorn sheep habitat resulting from the implementation of the sheep barrier through a Transfer of Conservation Objectives or the acquisition of additional habitat not currently to be conserved in the SRSLM Conservation Area, consistent with the requirements of the CVMSHCP and in accordance with Section 11.7 of the CVMSHCP Implementing Agreement.

Written documentation of compliance with the CVMSHCP shall be provided to the Wildlife Agencies

CVCC Initiated prior to construction

BIO-13 Prior to the completion of fence construction, CVCC and its partner agencies shall prepare a post-construction PBS monitoring plan for this portion of Recovery Region 3 that will provide for ongoing evaluation of bighorn sheep movements and population effects associated with the fence.

A written monitoring plan shall be provided to and approved by the Wildlife Agencies

CVCC Prior to completion of construction

BIO-14 Prior to fence construction, CVCC shall confer and coordinate with the

A written post-construction strategic

CVCC Prior to construction

Draft 04.11.19

MMRP- 37

Environ-mental Issue Area

Mitigation Measure

Method to Demonstrate

Compliance with Mitigation Measure

Responsible

Party

Timing/ Phase

Verification of

Compliance

Remarks

Date Initial wildlife agencies, Bighorn Institute, property owners and/or managers, and other parties, as appropriate, to develop and implement a post-construction strategic management plan that addresses: 1) hazing of PBS that become entrapped on the urban side of the fence, including establishment of a procedural process, methods of herding bighorn sheep, qualifications and availability of personnel, timelines for execution, funding, and methods to minimize disturbance to bighorn sheep, and 2) ongoing fence inspection and maintenance, including identification of responsible parties, timelines, funding, access, and emergency plans for repair or hazing should PBS breach the fence.

management plan shall be provided to and approved by the Wildlife Agencies

Cultural Resources

CUL-1 Although previous field surveys and assessments have well-documented the occurrence of cultural resources along the Alternative C alignment, a final alignment pre-construction survey shall be conducted to revisit previously identified sites, observe for others along the alignment and establish the final alignments in a manner that avoids impacts to cultural resources.

Written documentation of survey findings shall be provided to CVCC. Final alignment shall be shown on construction plans.

CVCC and Project Archaeologist

Prior to ground-disturbing activities

Draft 04.11.19

MMRP- 38

Environ-mental Issue Area

Mitigation Measure

Method to Demonstrate

Compliance with Mitigation Measure

Responsible

Party

Timing/ Phase

Verification of

Compliance

Remarks

Date Initial CUL-2 To ensure impacts to Site 33-000627

are less than significant, the project archaeologist or qualified monitor shall be present to establish the final alignment and during fence construction in this area to ensure that impacts to resources associated with this site are avoided.

Final alignment shall be shown on construction plans

Archaeological monitor

Project planning phase, and prior to and during construction

CUL-3 In order to avoid impacts to Site 33-000626, the Alternative C fence alignment in this area shall be adjusted to the southwest and remain outside or at most on the edge of this site. An archaeological monitor shall be present when the final alignment is determined and the fence constructed in this area.

Final alignment shall be shown on construction plans

CVCC and Archaeological monitor

Project planning phase, and prior to and during construction

CUL-4 In order to avoid impacts to Site 33-016202, the Alternative C alignment shall be adjusted to locate the fence farther south of its current approximate alignment sufficient to avoid impacts to this site. An archaeological monitor shall be present when the final alignment is determined and the fence constructed in this area.

Final alignment shall be shown on construction plans

CVCC and Archaeological monitor

Project planning phase, and prior to and during construction

CUL-5 To avoid impacts to Sites 33-012977 and 33-012978, minor adjustments to the fence alignment shall be made at these locations sufficient to avoid impacts to these resources if they are still intact. An archaeological monitor

Final alignment shall be shown on construction plans

CVCC and Archaeological monitor

Project planning phase, and prior to and during construction

Draft 04.11.19

MMRP- 39

Environ-mental Issue Area

Mitigation Measure

Method to Demonstrate

Compliance with Mitigation Measure

Responsible

Party

Timing/ Phase

Verification of

Compliance

Remarks

Date Initial shall be present when the final alignment is determined and the fence constructed in this area.

CUL-6 Should unknown archeological or tribal materials become unearthed, the qualified archeologist monitoring construction shall prepare a findings report summarizing the methods and results of the monitoring program, including an itemized inventory and a detailed analysis of recovered artifacts upon completion of the field and laboratory work. The report shall include an interpretation of the cultural activities represented by the artifacts and a discussion of the significance of all archaeological or tribal finds. The submittal of the report to the CVCC and appropriate responsible agencies, along with final curation of the recovered artifacts, will signify completion of the monitoring program and, barring unexpected findings of extraordinary significance, the mitigation of potential impacts on cultural and tribal resources.

Written report shall be submitted to CVCC, ACBCI, TMDCI, and other responsible agencies

Archaeological monitor

During construction

CUL-7 Should buried human remains be discovered during project construction, in accordance with State law, the County coroner shall be contacted. If the remains are determined to be of Native American

Written documentation of correspondence shall be provided to CVCC, ACBCI, TMDCI, and other responsible agencies

CVCC and Archaeological monitor

During construction

Draft 04.11.19

MMRP- 40

Environ-mental Issue Area

Mitigation Measure

Method to Demonstrate

Compliance with Mitigation Measure

Responsible

Party

Timing/ Phase

Verification of

Compliance

Remarks

Date Initial heritage, the Native American Heritage Commission and the appropriate local Native American Tribe shall be contacted to determine the Most Likely Descendant (MLD). CVCC shall work with the designated MLD to determine the final disposition of the remains.

CUL-8 In the event paleontological resources are encountered, the cultural resources monitor shall, upon discovery of any fossils, quickly salvage them as they are unearthed to avoid construction delays. The monitor shall remove samples of sediments that are likely to contain the remains of small fossil invertebrates and vertebrates. The monitor shall have the authority to temporarily halt or divert grading and excavation equipment to allow for removal of abundant or large specimens.

Written documentation of findings and actions taken shall be provided to CVCC

Archaeological monitor

During construction

Noise The noise mitigation measures shown for Alternatives A/A2, above, shall be implemented for Alternative C.

Same as Alternatives A/A2, above.

Same as Alternatives A/A2, above.

Same as Alternatives A/A2, above.

AVENUE 54

AVENUE 52

58TH AVE

La Quinta Peninsular Bighorn Sheep Barrier Project

La Quinta PBS Barrier A2_version3.mxd4/26/2019

Coachella Valley Conservation Commission

The Tradition

SilverRock

PGA West

Lake Cahuilla

The Quarry

Ü

Alternative ALegend

City of La QuintaCVWDPrivateRiverside County

Bureau of Land ManagementBureau of Reclamation

k

k

k Proposed StagingArea/Helipad

XY

XY

XY XY

XY

CVWD FenceBuilt

SilverRock FenceBuilt

Completed Fence

BLM Wilderness

Habitat Outside FenceAltA2

Habitat Outside FenceAltA

Alternative A2

0 1 20.5Miles