HomeMy WebLinkAboutORD 1034ORDINANCE NO. 1034
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM
DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND CHANGE
OF ZONE FROM HILLSIDE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL, DRAINAGE
TO OPEN SPACE, DRAINAGE FOR 18 ACRES ADJACENT TO
HOMME/ADAMS PARK. MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS
APNs 628-030-001 THROUGH 628-030-004.
CASE NO. C/Z 03-01.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, aid on the 23rd day
of January, 2003, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request of the City of Palm
Desert, for approval of the above; and
WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm
Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No.
00-24," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project will not
have a significant impact on the environment and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact has been prepared; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find the
following facts and reasons to exist to justify granting approval of said change of zone:
1. The land use resulting from the change of zone would be compatible with adjacent
existing land uses.
2. The density resulting from the change of zone would not be incompatible with
densities permitted in the adjacent areas.
3. The proposed change of zone will not depreciate property values, restrict the
lawful use of adjacent properties or threaten the public health, safety or general
welfare.
4. The Open Space, Drainage zoning designation will be consistent with the General
Plan as amended.
The City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, DOES HEREBY
ORDAIN,AS FOLLOWS:
That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings
of the Council in this case.
2. That a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, Exhibit "A",
and C/Z 03-01, are hereby approved.
ORDINANCE NO. 1034
3. That the City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert, California, shall certify to the
passage adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be
published once in the Desert Sun, a newspaper of general circulation,
circulated within the City of Palm Desert, and the same be in full force and
effect thirty (30) days after its adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert
City Council, held on this 13th day of MARCH , 2003, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:CRITES, KELLY, SPIEGEL AND BENSON
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: FF.RGUSON
ABSTAIN: NONE
ATTEST:
RACHELLE KLASSEN,-City Clerk
City of Palm Desert, California
2
ORDINANCE NO. 1034
EXHIBIT A
Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 6 (commencing with section 15070) of the California
Code of Regulations.
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CASE NO.: C/Z 03-01
APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Dr.
Palm Desert, Ca. 92260
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION:
A change of zone from Hillside Planned Residential, Drainage to Open Space, Drainage at for
18 acres adjacent to Homme/Adams Park. More particularly described as: APNs 628-030-001
through 628-030-004
The Director Of The Department Of Community Development, City Of Palm Desert, California,
has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A copy
of the initial study has been attached to document the reasons in support of this finding.
Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects, may
also be found attached.
PHILIP DRELL DATE
DIRECTOR O COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
3
O.S. ! j H.P.R., D �
P w
r I I `-'1� • ,o'er
A . P.R.-7 ~-
04 -
�
CA
w ` P.R.-7
JACK
KRAME
TONY
TRAVERT
Proposed
Zoning Change
H.P.R., D
To
O.S., D
Case No. C/Z 03-01 CITY COUNCIL
Change Of Zone ORDINANCE NO. 1034
EXHIBIT E Date: 3/13/2003
Ordinance No. 1034
FINAL
INITIAL STUDY/
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
City of Palm Desert
Prepared for:
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260-2578
Prepared by:
CHAMBERS GROUP, INC.
302 Brookside Avenue
Redlands, CA 92373
(909) 335-7068
December 2002
Ordinance No. 1034
Draft
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Trail Improvement Project
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260-2578
PROPOSED FINDING
Based upon the information contained in the Initial Study, the City of Palm Desert finds that there would
not be a significant effect to the environment because the mitigation measures described herein would be
incorporated as part of the project. The -facts supporting. this finding are presented in the attached Mitiai-
Study.
PROJECT PROPONENT
City of Palm Desert
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Peninsular Ranges bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis nelsorn) is a distinct vertebrate population
segment listed as endangered under the Federal Endangered Species Act (1973) and a state -listed
threatened species located in the project area. Hiking with dogs is a popular pastime in the Coachella
Valley. Because bighorn sheep evolved with canine predators (Geist 1971) they are particularly sensitive
to the presence of dogs and exhibit elevated heart rates (MacArthur et al. 1979, MacArthur et al. 1982,
Purdy and Shaw 1981) and increased nervousness and flight response. In addition, chronic stress may
result in physiological changes (Martucci et al. 1992). This has created a conflict between bighorn sheep
conservation management and recreational use of public lands. In 2000, BLM issued a temporary
closure of public lands east of Palm Canyon, prohibiting dogs in designated critical bighorn habitat,
except in a few designated areas. The area south of the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National
Visitor Center on Highway 74 had been an historic dog use area prior to City acquisition.. The City has
never adopted a management plan for the property and has not acted to prohibit dogs This situation
caused a conflict with the Bighorn Institute, a captive bighorn sheep breeding facility located north of the
Visitor Center. The director of the Bighorn Institute has expressed concern over the nearness of the dogs
south of the Visitor Center and has requested that they be moved to a different location. The City of Palm
Desert has proposed to formally construct a loop trail south of the Visitor Center that would be off-limits to
dogs, and to construct an additional trail on the west side of Highway 74 that would connect the Homme
Adams Park with the Cahuilla Hills Park. Dogs would be allowed on the entire trail when the Homme-
Adams Park Trail and Cahuilla Hills Park Trail are connected.
Homme-Adams Trail. This 2-mile trail would be created by improving existing trails in Homme-Adams
Park and Cahuilla Hills Park on land owned by the City of Palm Desert (about 1 mile) at Homme-Adams
and Cahuilla Hills parks and Fox Canyon (Figure 2) and establishing a connector trail (about 1 mile)
between the two City parks on BLM-managed land. The connector trail on BLM Land (T5S, R6E,
Section 30 SBM) entails improving approximately 0.5 mile of existing trail and approximately 0.5 mile of
new trail construction using switchbacks on steep terrain. Hiking with dogs is currently allowed on the
existing trails in Homme-Adams Park and Cahuilla Hills Park on City land, and such use would continue
to be allowed. The BLM portion of the trail would also be designated for dog use. Leashes shall be
required for dog use on the section of trail located on BLM land. Parking would be provided at the
trailhead at both Homme-Adams Park and Cahuilla Hills Park. Dog owners would be required to keep
their dogs under voice control at all times. Additionally, dog owners would be required to pick up and
remove dog feces from the area. Plastic bags would be provided at the trailhead for this purpose.
All construction equipment would be limited to a maximum overall wheel or track width of 36 inches.
Construction would be conducted with a small skid -steer loader (i.e., Bobcat). In general, the existing
vegetation would be cleared 18 inches from the centerline of the trail (3 feet total). Existing vegetation
5373 1 Dratt IS/MND Palm Deserr Trad improvements
03/04/03
Ordinance No. 1034
shall be maintained to the greatest extent possible. However, where the trail crosses steep slopes or in
other areas where a 36 inch trail width is not feasible, a narrower trail would be constructed. At no time
would the trail width be less than 1 foot. On slopes of 10 percent or less, grading would be kept to a
minimum. For the majority of the trail, plant material and litter would be removed from the trail surface to
expose, but not remove, the soil. Grading would only occur where it is necessary to create a smooth trail
tread. On slopes over 10 percent, cut and fill techniques and rock retaining walls would be used to
maintain a fairly level trail on slopes. Blasting may be used during construction to clear rocks. If needed,
blasting is expected to occur only on portions of the 0.5-mile switchback portion of the trail.
Construction would take approximately 150 days for the connector portion of the trail and 30 days to
improve the existing trails. Dog use would continue to be allowed on the City -owned portions of the
unimproved trails in both Homme-Adams and Cahuilla Hills parks until construction and improvement
activities started. During the construction and trail improvement period, the public would not be allowed
on the trail. To minimize the amount of -time that king Mth dogs trail is unavailable, the Cahuilla Hilts
Park portion of the trail may be opened as soon as it is improved, prior to the completion of the connector.
After construction of the connector trail, dogs would be allowed on the entire trail.
Visitor Center Loop Trail. The Visitor Center Loop Trail is an informa( trait in an existing wash and along
a dirt road. The existing trail is an approximately three-mile loop beginning at the Santa Rosa and San
Jacinto Mountains National Monument Visitor Center parking lot, which is located east of State Route
(SR) 74 at an elevation of approximately 1,000 feet above mean sea level (MSL). The majority of the trail
(approximately 2.8 miles) is on land owned by the City of Palm Desert.
Construction techniques would be similar to those described for the Homme-Adams Trail. Construction
improvements on the Visitor Center Loop Trail would take approximately 75 days.
Informational signs informing the public about the prohibition of dogs on the trail would be posted at the
trailhead. Educational materials regarding the effect of domestic dogs on the bighorn sheep may be
placed on existing indoor and outdoor displays at the Visitor Center. Parking for the trail would be at the
existing Visitor Center parking lot.
Access to segments of the old "Shirley" road shall be blocked to public use through a
combination of signage, fencing and physical barriers, including deconstructing and recontouring
the road sufficient to discourage access and reinforce the closure along the saddle immediately
south of the BLM property line that leads to an overlook on BLM lands of the Bighorn Institute's
sheep pens.
Trail enforcement and management will be coordinated with the BLM to ensure adequate
management presence, including coverage for the early morning and late evening periods and on
weekends when the Visitor Center closes.
If these measures are not effective in preventing trespass off City lands, as well as human access
along the ridge line overlooking the Bighorn Institute, the City will initiate a progressive
management strategy, including stricter enforcement and penalties when legally feasible, more
extensive installation of fencing and signage at appropriate locations, and recontouring additional
road segments. Progressive management measures will be concurred with by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Game.
PROJECT LOCATION
As shown in Figure 1 through Figure 3 of the attached Initial Study, the Visitor Center Loop Trail would be
located southeast of the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument Visitors Center and
the Homme-Adams Trail would be located east of the Palm Valley Stormwater Channel in the City of
Palm Desert.
5373 2 Draft IS/MND Palm Desert Trail improvements
03/04/03
Ordinance No. 1034
MITIGATION MEASURES INCORPORATED INTO THE PROJECT TO AVOID POTENTIALLY
SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS
Biololoical Resources
B-1 To mitigate the impacts of dogs on bighorn sheep, appropriate signage and symbolic
barriers will be constructed along the western edge of the connecting trail between Homme-
Adams Park and Cahuilla Hills Park on BLM land to reduce the likelihood of loose dogs in
bighorn sheep habitat. This also includes deconstruction and recontouring existing trails
sufficient to discourage access and reinforce the hiking closure off City and BLM lands,
pending approval by adjoining landowners.
B-2 Blasting may occur from October 1 through January 1 to protect bighorn sheep during the
lambing and hot season.Trail constructtuh—on BLM- land shall be deferred until after the
lambing season.
B-3 Conspicuous signage and information kiosks at the trailhead will inform hikers of dog
restrictions and the sensitivity of the environment as well as other trail use requirements.
Information regarding dog use will also be made available through the City's bi-monthly
newsletter. The City will consult with BLM, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California
Department of Fish and Game regarding the information content of these materials.
Violation of these requirements shall be subject to a significant fine.
B-4 An adequate management program shall be provided to monitor compliance and enforce
trail and dog -use rules at the Homme-Adams and Cahuilla Hills Park Trail Loop.
B-5 Access to segments of the old "Shirley" road shall be blocked to public use through a
combination of signage, fencing and physical barriers, including deconstructing and
recontouring the road sufficient to discourage access and reinforce the closure along the
saddle immediately south of the BLM property line that leads to an overlook on BLM lands of
the Bighorn Institute's sheep pens.
B-6 Trail enforcement and management will be coordinated with the BLM to ensure adequate
management presence, including coverage for the early morning and late evening periods
and on weekends when the Visitor Center closes. If these measures are not effective in
preventing trespass off City lands, as well as human access along the ridge line overlooking
the Bighorn Institute, the City will initiate a progressive management strategy, including
stricter enforcement and penalties when legally feasible, more extensive installation of
fencing and signage at appropriate locations, and recontouring additional road segments.
Progressive management measures will be concurred with by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and California Department of Fish and Game.
B-7 Prior to new construction in these areas, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps),
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), and Regional Water Quality Control
Board (RWQCB) will be consulted regarding their jurisdiction over these resources. All
required permits will be obtained prior to new trail construction and all permit provisions will
be adhered to in order to mitigate potential impacts to these resources.
Cultural Resources
C-1 To avoid inadvertent impacts to unidentified subsurface cultural resources, a qualified
archaeologist must monitor construction in areas that require blasting, cut and fill, or other
substantial surface disturbing activities along the Homme-Adams Trail. If previously
unidentified cultural resources are encountered during construction, all activity in the
immediate area must cease and the BLM archaeologist must be consulted.
5373 3 Draft tS/MND Palm Desert Trail improvements
03/04/03
Ordinance No. 1034
Noise
N-1 All blasting shall conform with all City of Palm Desert regulations including construction
hours,and special permits. All construction, including blasting, shall be limited to between 7
a.m. and 6 p.m. Monday through Saturday.
INITIAL STUDY PREPARED BY:
CHAMBERS GROUP, INC.
302 Brookside Avenue
— Redlands; CA 92373 l
FILING DATE:
PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD: I O to
DATED: I O
5373 4 Draft IS/MND Palm Desert Trail improvements
03704)03
Ordinance No. 1034
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
Project Title: Trail Improvement Project
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260-2578
3. Contact Person and Telephone Number:
Jeff Winklepleck, Parks and Recreation Planning Manager
(760)346-0611
4. Project Location
The Visitor Center Loop Trail would be located southeast of the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto
Mountains National Monument Visitors Center and the Homme-Adams Trail would be located
east of the Palm Valley Stormwater Channel in the City of Palm Desert (Figures 1, 2, and 3).
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260-2578
6. General Plan Designation: BLM Visitors Center Loop Trail: National Monument
Homme-Adams Park Trail: Hillside Planned Residential and
Open Space
7. Zoning: BLM Visitors Center Loop Trail: National Monument
Homme-Adams Park Trail: Hillside Planned Residential and Open Space
8. Description of Project:
Proiect Background
The Peninsular Ranges bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis nelsons) is a distinct vertebrate population
segment listed as endangered under the Federal Endangered Species Act (1973) and a state -listed
threatened species located in the project area. Hiking with dogs is a popular pastime in the Coachella
Valley. Because bighorn sheep evolved with canine predators (Geist 1971) they are particularly sensitive
to the presence of dogs and exhibit elevated heart rates (MacArthur et al. 1979, MacArthur et al. 1982,
Purdy and Shaw 1981) and increased nervousness and flight response. In addition, chronic stress may
result in physiological changes (Martucci et al. 1992). This has created a conflict between bighorn sheep
conservation management and recreational use of public lands. In 2000, BLM issued a temporary
closure of public lands east of Palm Canyon, prohibiting dogs in designated critical bighorn habitat,
except in a few designated areas. The area south of the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National
Visitor Center on Highway 74 had been an historic dog use area prior to City acqusition. The City has not
adopted a management plan for the area and has not acted to prohibit dogs. This situation caused a
conflict with the Bighorn Institute, a captive bighorn sheep breeding facility located north of the Visitor
Center. The director of the Bighorn Institute has expressed concern over the nearness of the dogs south
of the Visitor Center and has requested that they be moved to a different location. The City of Palm
Desert has proposed to formally construct a loop trail south of the Visitor Center that would be off-limits to
dogs, and to construct an additional trail on the west side of Highway 74 that would connect the Homme
Adams Park with the Cahuilla Hills Park. Dogs would be allowed on the entire trail when the Homme-
Adams Park Trail and Cahuilla Hills Park Trail are connected.
5373 1 Draft 1$/MMND Palm Desert Trad Improvements
03/04/03
( � •, 4� �� — .._..$fir yis�:•F.. �.: �1'eb'1i�8°�"-�
�, _ -• i • "►'L � ,, � s� .per- ^ .
alignment — = K '9 • + P N
'so` ` i.,.......
(y� Watar�
'Water
n _ x Water \`
• J : C
Ua Hills
r., s
I Y Mr,
I • } •V Jam.,
t
-- ---
iM
domed
-
toall
_ p Is is accM
High ridge spur
trail eliminated ;
.*am proposal
Figure 1
Homme - Adams Trail
and
Visitor Center Loop Tra
Legend
NProposed Trails
N
W E
S
1:24000
)00 0 1000 2000 Feet
1' •� • ..40
I ! I
'. ..r. - '•fir p -rrr- a.
N .
r w�.•+�.• w rHwl-.wr-rl.+/ww • , = ti ``�
ww
I AUGNMENT
Figure 2 - Homme -Ada -
Adams Trail N
I
1:4800 .=�.
Legend 400 p :v-.-�• ;�.. E
-- r- 400 1 F . ro
- �800 Feet
-
' J I
Ordinance No. 1034
Figure 3 - Visitor Center Loop Trail
'closed to all public access
Levee,,
1 High ridge spur
JW ^► I ��� ti, - �r'`7 trail eliminated., -
A from proposal.-
00
- - f
j C1 \
j
_ B .I34 -
IN
Ordinance No. 1034
Proposed Proiect
Homme-Adams Trail. This 2-mile trail would be created by improving existing trails in Homme-Adams
Park and Cahuilla Hills Park on land owned by the City of Palm Desert (about 1 mile) at Homme-Adams
and Cahuilla Hills parks and Fox Canyon (Figure 2) and establishing a connector trail (about 1 mile)
between the two City parks on BLM-managed land. The connector trail on BLM Land (TSS, R6E,
Section 30 SBM) entails improving approximately 0.5 mile of existing trail and approximately 0.5 mile of
new trail construction using switchbacks on steep terrain. Hiking with dogs is currently allowed on the
existing trails in Homme-Adams Park and Cahuilla Hills Park on City land, and such use would continue
to be allowed. The BLM portion of the trail would also be designated for dog use. Leashes shall be
required for dog use on the section of trail located on BLM land. Parking would be provided at the
trailhead at both Homme-Adams Park and Cahuilla Hills Park. Dog owners would be required to keep
their dogs under�oice-control at all times. Additionally, dog owners wortd be required to pick up and
remove dog feces from the area. Plastic bags would be provided at the trailhead for this purpose.
All construction equipment would be limited to a maximum overall wheel or track width of 36 inches.
Construction would be conducted with a small skid -steer loader (i.e., Bobcat). In general, the existing
vegetation would be cleared 18 inches from the centerline of the trail (3 feet total) Existing vegetation
shall be maintained to the greatest extent possible. However, where the trail crosses steep slopes or in
other areas where a 6-foot-trail width is not feasible, a narrower trail would be constructed. At no time
would the trail width be less than 1 foot. On slopes of 10 percent or less, grading would be kept to a
minimum. For the majority of the trail, plant material and litter would be removed from the trail surface to
expose, but not remove, the soil. Grading would only occur where it is necessary to create a smooth trail
tread. On slopes over 10 percent, cut and fill techniques and rock retaining walls would be used to
maintain a fairly level trail on slopes. Blasting may be used during construction to clear rocks. If needed,
blasting is expected to occur only on portions of the 0.5-mile switchback portion of the trail.
Construction would take approximately 150 days for the connector portion of the trail and 30 days to
improve the existing trails. Dog use would continue to be allowed on the City -owned portions of the
unimproved trails in both Homme-Adams and Cahuilla Hills parks until construction and improvement
activities started. During the construction and trail improvement period, the public would not be allowed
on the trail. To minimize the amount of time that the hiking with dogs trail is unavailable, the Cahuilla Hills
Park portion of the trail may be opened as soon as it is improved, prior to the completion of the connector.
After construction of the connector trail, dogs would be allowed on the entire trail.
Visitor Center Loop Trail. The Visitor Center Loop Trail is an informal trail in an existing wash and along
a dirt road. The existing trail is an approximately three-mile loop beginning at the Santa Rosa and San
Jacinto Mountains National Monument Visitor Center parking lot, which is located east of State Route
(SR) 74 at an elevation of approximately 1,000 feet above mean sea level (MSL). There would be a spur
trail off the main loop trail leading to a viewpoint located at about 1,750 feet MSL. Part of the easternmost
spur trail would use an existing dirt road, and no construction or improvement is anticipated on this part of
the trail. The majority of the trail (approximately 2.8 miles) is on land owned by the City of Palm Desert.
Construction techniques would be similar to those described for the Homme-Adams Trail. Construction
improvements on the Visitor Center Loop Trail would take approximately 75 days.
Informational signs informing the public about the prohibition of dogs on the trail would be posted at the
trailhead. Educational materials regarding the effect of domestic dogs on the bighorn sheep may be
placed on existing indoor and outdoor displays at the Visitor Center. Parking for the trail would be at the
existing Visitor Center parking lot.
5373 5 Draft iS/MND Palm Desert Trail Improvements
03/04/03
Ordirelce No. 1034
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
Homme-Adams Trail. Land uses north, south, and west of the project area include open space and
residential land uses. The Palm Valley Stormwater Channel and residential land uses are east of the
project area. The new switchback construction would occur on BLM-managed land.
Visitor Center Loop Trail. The Visitor Center Loop Trail is located mostly on City -owned land within the
boundaries of the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument. SR 74 is west of the
project area The Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument Visitor Center, associated
parking, and driveway are located northwest of the project area. The Bighorn Institute facility is located
north of the Visitor Center. The Boyd Deep Canyon Desert Research Center, operated by UC Riverside,
is located on approximately 16,800 acres east of the project area. The remainder of the land uses south,
west, and north of the projects, ea are open space. - - — — - - - -
10. Other Public Agencies Whose Approvals Are Required:
Agency Permit or Approval
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California Approval to improve/construct trails in
Department of Fish and Game, U.S. washes
Armv Coras of Enoineers
BLM Approval to improve/construct trails on BLM-
managed land/National Environmental
Policy Act compliance
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
❑ Aesthetics
❑ Agriculture Resources
❑ Air Quality
❑ Biological Resources
❑ Cultural Resources
❑ Geology and Soils
Determination
❑ Hazards/Hazardous Materials
❑ Hydrology/Water Quality
❑ Land Use and Planning
❑ Mineral Resources
❑ Noise
❑ Population and Housing
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
❑ Public Services
❑ Recreation
❑ Transportation/Circulation
❑ Utilities and Service Systems
❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the
project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
A
AM
5373 6 Draft IS/MND Palm Desert Trail Improvements
03/04/03
Ordinance No. 1034
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and ❑
an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact' or "potentially
significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment but at least one effect 1) has
been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier
analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is ❑
required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, because -all poterrtiatly stgnirficant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable
standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or
NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are ❑
imposed upon Ae proposed project, nothing further is required.
Printed Name
Datef
City of Palm Desert _
Agency
5373 03/04/03 7 Draft IS/MND Palm Desert Trao Improvements
/0
Ordkmce No. 1034
I. AESTHETICS
a) Would the project have a substantial adverse
Less than
effect on a scenic vista?
Significant
Potentially
with
Less than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant No
Impact
Incorporation
Impact Impact
❑
❑
0 ❑
Both trail sites are partially on BLM-managed land. The BLM Visual Resource Management
(VRM) system is an analytical process that identifies, sets, and meets objectives for maintaining
scenic values and visual quality. It functions in two ways. First, an inventory is conducted that
evaluates visual resources (Inventory/Evaluation). Once inventoried and analyzed, lands- are _.
assigned management classifications. Management classes describe the different degrees of
modification allowed to the basic elements of the landscape. Second, when development is
proposed, the degree of contrast between the proposed activity and the existing landscape is
measured (Contrast Rating).
An inventory/evaluation of visual resources was conducted for each of the project areas. For
both areas, scenic quality is rated as "Class B" (there is a combination of some outstanding
features and some that are fairly common to the physiographic region); sensitivity level is rated as
"High," and the distance zone is determined as "Foreground / Middleground," resulting in a VRM
Class of "2." The management objective of Class 2 areas is to ensure that that changes in any of
the basic elements (form, line, color, texture) caused by a management activity should not be
evident in the characteristic landscape; contrasts can be seen, but must not attract attention.
Contrast ratings for the proposed Visitor Center Loop Trail and Homme-Adams Park Trail reveal
the degree of contrast for each as "none" to "weak," consistent with VRM objectives for Class 2
areas.
The complete VRM analysis is available for review at the City of Palm Desert Planning
Department and BLM's Palm Springs -South Coast Field Office.
b) Would the project substantially damage scenic
Less than
resources, including, but not limited to, trees,
Significant
rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
9
Potentially
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant No
state scenic highway?
Impact
Incorporation
Impact Impact
❑
❑
0 ❑
SR-74, located east of the Visitor Center Loop Trail, is designated as a state scenic highway. As
discussed in the VRM analysis for the project, however, substantial damage to scenic resources
in the vicinity of the highway are not anticipated.
c) Would the project substantially degrade the
Less than
existing visual character or quality of the site and
Significant
its surroundings?
Potentially
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant No
Impact
Incorporation
Impact Impact
❑
❑
0 Cl
The existing visual character or quality of the project areas and their surroundings would not be
substantially degraded, as discussed in the VRM analysis for the project.
5373 a Draft ISIMND Patm Desert Trad improvements
03/04/03
Ordinance No. 1034
d) Would the project create a new source of
Less than
substantial light or glare, which would adversely
Significant
or nighttime views in the area?
affect day 9
Potential) y
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant No
Impact
Incorporation
Impact Impact
No new sources of light or glare are proposed, and no impact would occur.
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES
a) Would the project convert Prime Farmland,
Less than
Unique Farmland, or Farmland- of. Statewide_.
Significant
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
P ( ) P
Potentially
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant No
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Impact
Incorporation
Impact Impact
Monitoring Program of the California Resources
Agency, to non-agricultural use?
The project is not located in areas designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland
of Statewide Importance. No impact would occur.
b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for
Less than
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
Significant
Potentially
with
Less than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant No
Impact
Incorporation
Impact Impact
❑
❑
❑ 0
The project does not involve any conversion of land use, therefore, the project would not result in
a conflict with an agricultural or a Williamson Act contract zoning designation.
c) Would the project involve other changes in the
Less than
existing environment which, due to their location
Significant
or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland,
Potentially
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant No
to non-agricultural use?
Impact
Incorporation
Impact Impact
❑
❑
❑ 0
The project does not involve any conversion of land use, therefore, the project would not result in
the conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use.
III. AIR QUALITY
a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct
Less than
implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Significant
Potentially
with
Less than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant No
Impact
Incorporation
Impact Impact
❑
❑
0 ❑
The project consists of the construction of two trails. Construction will consist of removing
vegetation from the trail, a minimal amount of cutting and filling, and blasting rocks to facilitate
cutting. It is anticipated that there will be one piece of construction equipment, a skid -steer loader
(i.e., "Bobcat'). The project is not projected to produce any operational emissions in excess of the
5373 g Drafl 1S/MND Palm Desert Trait Improvements
03/04/03
Ordinance No. 1034
threshold values established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) or
exceed ambient air quality standards. As such, the project would not conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the 2002 Coachella Valley PM,D State Implementation Plan. Construction
emissions are also expected to be minor, as described in b), below. Additional information is
included as part of Appendix A, Air Quality.
b) Would the project violate any air quality standard
Less than
or contribute substantially to an existing or
Significant
projected air quality violation?
Potentially
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant No
Impact
Incorporation
Impact Impact
❑
❑
a ❑_ .
During construction, there will be emissions from the operation of the skid -steer loader, the use of
explosives, and trips by the construction worker. These impacts would be temporary and would
not exceed SCAQMD daily threshold values.
c) Would the project result in a cumulatively
Less than
-
considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant
Significant
for which the project region is non -attainment
Potentially
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant No
under an applicable federal or state ambient air
Impact
Incorporation
Impact Impact
quality standard (including releasing emissions
which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
❑
❑
0 ❑
In accordance with SCAQMD methodology, any project that does not exceed the annual
threshold values or can be mitigated to less than these values would not add to a cumulative
impact. A cumulative impact would not occur.
d) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to
Less than
substantial pollutant concentrations?
Significant
Potentially
With
Less than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant No
Impact
Incorporation
Impact Impact
❑
❑
0 ❑
During the construction phase, there will be emissions of all criteria pollutants. Because these
emissions will not exceed the threshold criteria, ambient pollutant impacts would not be expected
to exceed significance levels. These emissions will be temporary. During normal operation of the
trails, no direct or indirect emissions are expected.
e) Would the project create objectionable odors
Less than
affecting a substantial number of people?
Significant
Potentially
With
Less than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant No
Impact
Incorporation
Impact Impact
❑
❑
0 ❑
There may be some odors associated with the use of diesel equipment during the construction
phase. These odors will be temporary. It is not anticipated that anyone would be affected by
odors during the construction phase at this site.
5373 1 0 Draft IS/MND Palm Desert Trail Improvements
03/04/03
Ordinance No. 1034
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Information for this initial study was gathered from a number of sources, including:
➢ The Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Draft California Desert Conservation Area
Plan Amendment for the Coachella Valley and the Draft Santa Rosa and San Jacinto
Mountains Trails Management Plan (BLM 2002),
➢ The ongoing Coachella Valley Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Planning (MSHCP)
process,
➢ State databases of sensitive species locations (California Natural Diversity Database and
California Native Plant Society Electronic Inventory), and
➢ The site visit conducted on December 2, 2002 with the City of Palm Desert.
The project area is dominated by Sonoran creosote bush scrub (Holland 1986). Both the visitors'
center loop trail and Homme-Adams trail areas support mostly Sonoran creosote bush scrub
communities with varying degrees of disturbance from human use. Species characteristic of this
community include creosote bush (Larrea tridentata), desert lavender, chuparosa, burrobush
(Ambrosia dumosa), and brittlebush (Encelia farinosa). Wildlife expected to occur in the project
area includes reptiles such as the side blotched lizard (Uta stansburiana), speckled rattlesnake
(Crotalus mitchelh), red diamond rattlesnake (Crotalus rubus), and desert iguana (Dipsosauus
dorsalis); bird species common to the area such as mourning doves (Zenaida marcoura),
hummingbirds, mockingbirds, verdin, and common raven (Corvus corax); and mammal species
such as desert cottontail (Sylvilagus auduboni►) and coyote (Canis latrans).
a) Would the project have a substantial adverse
Less than
effect, either directly or through habitat
Significant
species identified as a
modifications, on any P
Potentially
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant No
candidate, sensitive, or special status species in
Impact
Incorporation
Impact Impact
local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or
by the California Department of Fish and Game
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
❑
El
❑ ❑
Sensitive species include those that are listed as endangered and threatened by the USFWS and
CDFG. Other sensitive species are also considered in this document, including those listed by
CDFG as California species of special concern, species listed by the California Native Plant
Society, BLM State Sensitive Species, and species covered by the Coachella Valley MSHCP.
Table 1 lists sensitive species recorded within three miles of the project area, and sensitive
species that have been identified in the region and may inhabit the habitats present at the
projects sites. Each of these species is further discussed following the table.
Table 1
Sensitive Species Recorded Near the Project Sites
Common Name
Scientific Name
Status
PFO
Habitat Requirements and Comments
PLANTS
Deep Canyon snapdragon
Federal: None
Inhabits rocky Sonoran desert scrub habitats below
Antirrhinum cyathiferum
State: None
approximately 1,500 feet mean sea level in elevation.
CNPS: 2
M
MSHCP: not covered
BLM: None
Glandular ditaxis
Federal: None
M
Inhabits Sonoran desert scrub habitats in sandy washes and
Ditaxis clanana
State: None
rocky hillsides.
5373 1 1 Draft IS/MND Palm Deseh Trail Improvements
03/04/03
Ordinance No. 1034
Common Name
Scientific Name
Status
PFO
Habitat Requirements and Comments
CNPS: 2
MSHCP: not covered
BLM: None
:;aldomia ditaxis
Federal: None
Inhabits Sonoran desert scrub habitats in sandy washes and
Ditaxis serrata var. califomica
State: None
alluvial fans.
CNPS: 3
M
MSHCP: not covered
BLM: None
WILDLIFE
Desert tortoise
Federal: T
Inhabits most desert habitats in low densities.
Gopherus agassizii
State: T
L
— -- --
MSHCP: covered
-
— — --- -
BLM: sensitive
Fiat -tailed homed lizard
Federal: PT
Inhabits desert washes and fiats with fine sand only in central
Phrynosoma mcalli
State: CSC
L
Riverside, Eastern San Diego, and imperial Counties.
MSHCP: covered
BLM: sensitive
LeConte's thrasher
Federal: None
Inhabits open desert wash and scrub habitats. Nests in dense
Toxostome lecontei
State: CSC
L
spiny shrubs or cactus.
MSHCP: covered
I
BLM: sensitive
Coachella Valley fringe -toed lizard
Federal: T
Inhabits windblown sand habitats in the Coachella Valley.
Uma inomata
State: E
L
MSHCP: covered
Peninsular bighorn sheep
Federal: E
Inhabits open desert slopes below 4,000 MSL in elevation with
Ovis canadensis nelsoni DPS
State: T
H
steep -walled canyons and ridges bisected by washes. Forages
MSHCP: covered
on alluvial fans near escape cover
BLM: sensitive
Status
Potential for Occurrence (PFO)
Federal
L = Low
c = Endangered
No present or historical records cite the species' occurrence in
T = Threatened
or near the project area, and the habitats strongly associated
PT = Proposed threatened
with the species do not occur in or near the vicinity.
State
M = Moderate
E = Endangered
a historical record exists of the species in or near the project
T = Threatened
area, or the habitats associated with the species occur in or
CSC = California Species of Special
Concern
near the project vicinity.
California Native Plant Society (CNPS}
H = High
2 = Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California but
a recent record exists of the species in or near the project
more common elsewhere
area, and the habitats associated with the species occur in or
3 = Plants about which we
need more information
near the project vicinity.
Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan
. Mf SHCP)
Covered = species proposed
to be covered under the MSHCP
Not covered = species not proposed to be covered
Three sensitive plant species, the Deep Canyon snapdragon, glandular ditaxis, and California
ditaxis, have been found within three miles of the project sites, and these sites do support the
habitats preferred by these plant species. New trail construction may adversely affect these
species by directly removing individual plants or small populations of these plants, if they are
present the areas where new construction will occur. Because none of these species is listed by
the federal or state agencies as endangered or threatened, these impacts are not expected to be
substantial and no mitigation is required.
5373 12 Draft IS/MND Palm Desert Trail Improvements
03/04/03
Ordinance No. 1034
One individual desert tortoise was recently observed in the area of the Visitor Center Loop Trail.
This sighting may have been a released captive tortoise since no other sightings of this species
have been made in the project area. In addition to this observation, tortoises have been observed
directly north of the Visitor Center at the Bighorn Golf Club. Habitat for the desert tortoise is
located on both sites.
LeConte's thrasher may be present throughout the Sonoran creosote scrub habitats on both
project sites. The proposed project is unlikely to adversely affect this species because little
habitat will be removed, and the area already supports a high degree of human and domestic dog
disturbance. Impacts are not expected to be substantial and no mitigation is required.
Bighorn sheep are most sensitive to disturbance during the lambing and rearing season (Geist
101 i inht and Weaver 1973, King and Workman ._1986, Wagner -and -Peek 1999, Wehausen
1980) and in lambing areas that are close to dependable water sources ( Leslie and Douglas
1980, McCarty and Bailey 1994, BLM 1980, Blong and Pollard 1968). Ewes exhibit a heightened
response to disturbance about a month prior to having their Iambs (Geist 1871, Hansen and
Deming 1980, Wagner and Peek 1999). The onset of lambing is correlated with seasonal
precipitation and forage availability (Goodson 1999, Wagner and Peek 1999, Rubin et al. 2000).
In the deserts of the southwestern United States, bighorn ewes may have their Iambs during any
month of the year (Guy Wagner, personal communication), but in general, ewes in the Peninsular
Ranges have their Iambs January through June (DeForge and Scott 1982, Rubin et al. 2000,
Bighorn Institute unpublished data) with the peak March 1 - April 30 (Figure 1). Lambing habitat
is characterized by rugged canyons and steep, open slopes which provide escape cover from
predators (Geist 1971, Wakelyn 1987, Risenhoover and Bailey 1985) and reduces impact from
human disturbance as well (Risenhoover et al. 1988). DeForge and Scott (1982) observed ewes
in the northern Santa Rosa Mountains giving birth in rugged canyons adjacent to the urban
interface. Another critical constituent of lambing habitat is water and nutritious forage. Ewes with
Iambs are typically found within 2 miles of water and will go to water every day if it is available
(Monson and Sumner 1980).
The proposed use of heavy equipment and blasting to construct the trails is likely to adversely
effect Peninsular Ranges bighorn sheep. Construction is likely to occur during the lambing
season, a time when bighorn sheep are much more vulnerable to disturbance (Geist 1971).
Ewes with Iambs that are disturbed during this critical period may abandon safe habitat for areas
less rugged with poorer escape options. In addition, construction activity has been shown to alter
behavior and movement of bighorn sheep (Leslie and Douglas 1980); thus it is likely that the
proposed activities will impact bighorn sheep. Noise associated with construction activity
including blasting, machinery and rolling rock is likely to displace bighorn sheep from habitat
adjacent to the project sites, especially at the Homme-Adams site. This displacement, although
likely to be temporary, will impact bighorn sheep during the critical lambing period. Therefore, to
avoid displacement, trail construction on BLM property shall not occur during the lambing season.
The Bighorn Institute, a non-profit research organization, lies north of the Visitor Center.
Currently, if dogs and their owners hike the old road to the north, they may be able to overlook
the sheep pens at the Institute. This may cause stress to captive bighorn. However, there is no
risk of adult sheep or Iambs being killed by dogs because the sheep are contained. Moving the
dog use area from south of the Visitor Center to Homme-Adams Park would decrease the risk of
sheep seeing dogs, thus, reducing stress to the captive sheep. In addition, there are lambing and
watering areas within one mile of this site on the west side of Hwy 74 in Carrizo and Dead Indian
Canyons. However, Hwy 74 presents a physical barrier that helps to contain dogs in the area
south of the Visitor Center and keeps them out of habitat occupied by wild sheep.
Creating a dog use area at the Homme-Adams Park would increase the potential for interaction
between domestic dogs and wild bighorn sheep. The proposed dog use area is within one mile of
occupied critical bighorn sheep habitat, known lambing areas, and known watering areas. Bradley
Canyon and Magnesia Canyon are both critical lambing sites and watering sites. The proposed
5373 1 3 Draft IS/MND Palm Desert Trail Improvements
03/04/03
Ordinance No. 1034
action would require that dogs be under voice control and assumes that all dogs respond to voice
control. Domestic dogs are known to chase and potentially kill bighorn sheep. Bighorn sheep
use their keen eyesight to detect predators, alert conspecifics visually, and seek escape through
rugged terrain. Unlike the Visitor Center site, there is no highway to act as a physical barrier
between occupied bighorn habitat and the dog use area. Without mitigation, there would be
nothing to prevent dogs from continuing upslope from the trail switchbacks and into sheep
habitat. Bighorn sheep evolved with canine predators (Geist 1971) and thus react very strongly
to domestic dogs. Disturbance of bighorn sheep by dogs causes heart rate increases and flight
response (MacArthur et al. 1979, MacArthur et al. 1982, Purdy and Shaw 1981), with
nervousness and alertness persisting for up to 30 minutes following an encounter and exhibiting
response to subtle stimuli which otherwise evoked no response (MacArthur et al. 1982).
The.following-mitigation measures will reduce impacts to bighormsheep -toaaess-than-significant
level.
B-1 To mitigate the impacts of dogs on bighorn sheep, appropriate signage and
symbolic barriers will be constructed along the western edge of the connecting trail
between Homme-Adams Park and Cahuilla Hills Park on BLM land to reduce the
likelihood of loose dogs in bighorn sheep habitat. This also includes deconstruction
and recontouring existing trails sufficient to discourage access and reinforce the
hiking closure off City and BLM lands, pending approval by adjoining landowners.
B-2 Blasting may occur from October 1 through January 1 to protect bighorn sheep
during the lambing and hot season.Trail construction on BLM land shall be deferred
until after the lambing season.
B-3 Conspicuous signage and information kiosks at the trailhead will inform hikers of
dog restrictions and the sensitivity of the environment as well as other trail use
requirements. Information regarding dog use will also be made available through the
City's bi-monthly newsletter. The City will consult with BLM, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and the California Department of Fish and Game regarding the information
content of these materials. Violation of these requirements shall be subject to a
significant fine.
B-4 An adequate management presence shall be provided to monitor compliance and
enforce trail and dog -use rules at the Homme-Adams and Cahuilla Hills Park Trail
Loop.
B-5 Access to segments of the old "Shirley" road shall be blocked to public use through
a combination of signage, fencing and physical barriers, including deconstructing
and recontouring the road sufficient to discourage access and reinforce the closure
along the saddle immediately south of the BLM property line that leads to an
overlook on BLM lands of the Bighorn Institute's sheep pens.
B-6 Trail enforcement and management will be coordinated with the BLM to ensure
adequate management presence, including coverage for the early morning and late
evening periods and on weekends when the Visitor Center closes. If these
measures are not effective in preventing trespass off City lands, as well as human
access along the ridge line overlooking the Bighorn Institute, the City will initiate a
progressive management strategy, including stricter enforcement and penalties
when legally feasible, more extensive installation of fencing and signage at
appropriate locations, and recontouring additional road segments. Progressive
management measures will be concurred with by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
and California Department of Fish and Game.
5373 14 Draft IS/MND Palm Desert Trail Improvements
03/0</03
Ordinance No. 1034
b) Would the project have a substantial adverse
Less man
t
effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive
significant
natural communityidentified in local or regional
9
Potentially
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant No
plans, policies, regulations or by the California
Impact
Incorporation
Impact Impact
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
1
Two sensitive habitats are found in the region, windblown sands and desert fan palm oasis
woodland. No windblown sands (which provide habitat for the flat -tailed horned lizard and
Coachella Valley fringe -toed lizard) have been identified in the project area. An area of desert fan
palm oasis woodland is found near the project area in Deep Canyon, east of and parallel to State
Route 74. This area -would -not be affected by the proposed project.
c) Would the project have a substantial adverse
Less than
effect on federally protected wetlands as defined
Significant
b Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including,
Y (� 9r
Potentially
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant No
but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal,
Impact
Incorporation
Impact Impact
etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
❑
❑ ❑
Washes present at the project sites do not support wetland vegetation but would likely fall under
the jurisdiction of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The Visitor Center Loop Trail extends
through a portion of an area of blue -line stream on U.S. Geological Society (USGS) maps. New
construction in this trail area may cross a higher area of the same wash, but is not a blue -line
stream on the map. At the Homme-Adams Trail, a blue -line stream is present that will be crossed
by the area of new construction. All of these drainages originate in the Santa Rosa Mountains
and flow to the Whitewater River, north of the project area.
Where there are existing trails, impacts are expected to be less than significant. For areas of
existing trails at the Visitor Center Loop Trail, impacts are expected to be beneficial because
domestic dogs will be removed from the area. The initial phases of construction will not adversely
affect these resources because they will take place exclusively on areas of existing trails. These
impacts are expected to be less than significant.
In areas where new trail construction would cross washes, impacts could be potentially
significant. With the incorporation of Mitigation Measure B-3, these impacts would be reduced to
a less -than -significant level.
B-7 Prior to new construction in these areas, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps),
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), and Regional Water Quality Control
Board (RWQCB) will be consulted regarding their jurisdiction over these resources. All
required permits will be obtained prior to new trail construction and all permit provisions
will be adhered to in order to mitigate potential impacts to these resources.
d) Would the project interfere substantially with the Less than -
movement of any native resident or migratory fish
Significant
species or with established native Potentially
or wildlife s P Significant
with Less than
Mitigation Significant No
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede Impact
the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
❑
Incorporation Impact Impact
❑ ❑ - 0
5373 15 Draft IS/MND Palm Desert Trail improvements
03/04/03
Ordinance No. 1034
Canyons in the project area are likely significant wildlife movement corridors. The proposed
project would likely create beneficial impacts for these areas along and near the visitors center
loop trail by removing domestic dogs from the area. The increase in domestic dog activity along
the Homme-Adams Trail is likely to adversely affect wildlife movement corridors. Even though
there is currently human and domestic dog activity in the area, the establishment of a formal trail
would increase the impacts to wildlife moving through the canyons adjacent to the area.
Mitigation Measure B-1, above, would reduce these impacts to a less than significant level.
e) Would the project conflict with any local policies
Less than
or ordinances protecting biological resources,
Significant
such as a tree reservation policy or ordinance?
p P Y
Potentially
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant No
-- - -- - -
Impact
incorporation —
—impact Impact
❑
❑
❑ 0
No trees are present on or adjacent to the project sites and therefore no conflict with such policies
would result from the proposed project.
f) Would the project conflict with the provisions of
Less than
an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Significant
CommunityConservation Plan NCCP , or other
( )
Potentially
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant No
approved local, regional, or state habitat
Impact
Incorporation
Impact Impact
conservation plan?
❑
❑
❑ 0
This project is in the Coachella Valley MSHCP area, a plan that is not yet adopted. The MSHCP
plan area covers 1,136,261 acres, a diverse mixture of desert and mountain habitats. The
Coachella Valley Association of Governments prepared an Administrative Review Draft, which
reflects the work of the Scientific Advisory Committee, the Implementation Subcommittee, and the
Project Advisory Group. After receiving comments from the local, state and federal agencies, a
Public Review Draft and Draft EIR/EIS is scheduled for release in early 2003. This project does
not conflict with current provisions of that MSHCP.
This project is also within the area covered by the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the
Draft California Desert Conservation Area Plan Amendment for the Coachella Valley and the
Draft Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains Trails Management Plan (BLM 2002). This project
is consistent with the trails and biological resources sections of that document.
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
A record search was conducted for the proposed project area by the Eastern Information Center,
located at the University of California, Riverside, on November 22, 2002. The search identified all
previous investigations, archaeological sites, and properties listed on the National Register of
Historic Places (NRHP), the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR), California Points
of Historical Interest, and California Historical Landmarks located within a 0.5-mile (800-meter)
radius of the project area. Results of the cultural resources record search indicate that there have
been three prior cultural resources surveys performed within the project area. Roughly half of the
Homme-Adams Trail was surveyed in 1990 and all of the area encompassing the Visitor Center
Loop Trail was inventoried during two separate surveys conducted in 1981 and 1995. In addition,
13 cultural resources surveys have been conducted within a half -mile radius of the project areas.
No archaeological sites, isolated finds, historic structures or features, or historic properties listed
on, or determined eligible for listing on, the NRHP or CRHR have been recorded within a half -mile
radius of the project area as a result of any of these previous investigations. A search of
information on file at the Palm Springs -South Coast Field Office of the BLM indicates that several
5373 16 Draft IS/MND Palm Desen Trail improvements
03/04/03
Ordinance No. 1034
archaeological sites have been recorded within 1 mile of both trails. These sites predominantly
consist of prehistoric -period materials.
Field survey of the project area was conducted by two qualified archaeologists from Chambers
Group on December 10, 2002. No archaeological sites or historic -age structures or features were —
identified within the project area during the survey, with the exception of one Government Land
Office (GLO) survey marker from 1942 located next to an existing portion of the Homme-Adams
Trail.
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse
Less than
change in the significance of a historical resource
Significant
as defined in §15064.5?
Potentially
Significant
with Less than
Mitigation Significant No
-
Impact
Incorporation - impact Impact
❑
❑ ❑ 0
The cultural resources records search results indicate that no properties listed on or determined
eligible for listing on the NRHP, CRHR, the California Points of Historical Interest, or the
California Historical Landmarks are located within a 0.5-mile radius of the project area. The 1942
GLO survey marker identified during field survey of the Homme-Adams trail is just one of
thousands placed in southern California in the first half of the 20'" Century and is unlikely to be
eligible for inclusion in the NRHP or CRHR. Furthermore, it is unlawful to disturb survey markers
and proposed trail construction activities will avoid this historic feature. Therefore, the proposed
project would have no impact on any historical resources and no mitigation measures are
required.
b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse
Less than
change in the significance of an archaeological
Significant
resource pursuant to 15064.5?
P §
Potentially
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant No
Impact
Incorporation
Impact Impact
❑
0
❑ ❑
Results of the cultural resources records search indicate that there are no known archaeological
sites within a radius of 0.5-mile of the project area. The field survey conducted by Chambers
Group confirmed that no surface archaeological materials are present within the project area.
A search of information on file at the Palm Springs -South Coast Field Office of the BLM indicates
that numerous archaeological sites are located within a one -mile radius of the Homme-Adams
portion of the project area. These sites include small clusters of ceramic sherds, lithic debitage,
rock cairns, milling features, and trail segments. Several of the sites appear to represent short-
term occupation or plant -processing sites. The terrain where these sites are found is very similar
to the terrain adjacent to the project area; therefore, there is a moderate potential for subsurface
prehistoric cultural resources to occur in or around the project area. Completion of the proposed
Homme-Adams trail system would involve switchbacks and surface disturbance from cut and fill
construction activities. These activities have the potential to impact unidentified subsurface
archaeological deposits. With the incorporation of Mitigation Measure C-1, this impact would be
reduced to a level that is less than significant.
C-1 To avoid inadvertent impacts to unidentified subsurface cultural resources, a qualified
archaeologist must monitor construction in areas that require blasting, cut and fill, or
other substantial surface disturbing activities along the Homme-Adams Trail. If previously
unidentified cultural resources are encountered during construction, all activity in the
immediate area must cease and the BLM archaeologist must be consulted.
5373 1 7 Draft IS/MND Palm Desert 7rad Improvements
03/04/03
Ordinance No. 1034
According to BLM files, previously -recorded cultural resources within the vicinity of the Visitor
Center Loop Trail include small ceramic sherd clusters and individual lithic or ground stone
artifacts. Sites within a one -mile radius include plant -processing sites with milling features and
sites containing ceramics, lithic debitage and evidence of occupation. The majority of these sites
are located east of the project area in Deep Canyon and are separated from the project by
rugged topography. There is a low potential for subsurface cultural resources to occur in the area
of the Visitor Center Loop Trail. The majority of the Visitor Center Loop Trail will require only
minimal enhancement of an existing trail system. No impacts to archaeological sites are
anticipated along this trail and no mitigation measures are required for this trail.
c) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a
Less than
unique paleontologica!-resource-or-site-or unique
Potentially
Significant
with
Less than
geologic feature?
Significant
Mitigation
Significant No
Impact
Incorporation
Impact Impact
❑
O
❑ a
A search of the paleontologic database at the Geological Section of the San Bernardino County
Museum in Redlands, California was conducted on November 27, 2002. The results of that
search indicate that no known paleontologic resources have been recorded within several miles
of either of the trails. The Visitor Center Loop Trail is located on surface exposures of Mesozoic
granitic rocks that have a low potential to contain fossil resources. The Homme-Adams Trail
crosses surface exposures of pre -Cretaceous metasedimentary rocks and Pleistocene nonmarine
sediments. The metasedimentary rocks have a low potential to contain fossil resources.
Pleistocene sediments in other parts of the region have produced significant paleontologic
resources; however, the depositional setting of the area encompassing the Homme-Adams Trail
is unlikely to have effectively preserved fossil resources (Scott 2002). Given the poor depositional
context for the preservation of significant paleontologic resources on the Homme-Adams Trails
and low potential for fossil resources on the Visitor Center Loop Trail, combined with the rather
shallow ground disturbance required for the proposed project, no impacts to significant
paleontologic resources are expected from the proposed improvements to the two trails. No
mitigation measures are required.
d) Would the project disturb any human remains,
Less than
including those interred outside of formal
Significant
cemeteries?
Potentially
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant No
Impact
Incorporation
Impact Impact
❑
❑
❑ m
The project area is not known to be the location of a prehistoric or historic -period human burial or
cemetery. No human remains have been identified in the vicinity of the project area and no
impacts are expected to human remains from the proposed project. A search of the Sacred Lands
File conducted by the California Native American Heritage Commission in Sacramento, California
on November 26, 2002 indicates that no Native American cultural resources are located in the
vicinity of the project area. Furthermore, the proposed project will include only minimal ground
disturbance to relatively shallow depths and would primarily be located in steep areas where
human remains are unlikely to exist. Therefore, no impacts to human remains are expected as a
result of the proposed project and no mitigation measures are required.
5373 18 Draft ISfMND Palm Desert TraO Improvements
03J04103
0rdmnce No. 1034
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
a) Would 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
Less than
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Significant
Earthquake Fault ZoningMa Issued b the
P � Y
Potentially
Significant
with Less than
Mitigation Significant No
State Geologist for the area or based on
Impact
Incorporation Impact Impact
other substantial evidence of a known fault?
Refer to Division of Mines and Geology
Special Publication-42:. _
❑
❑ ❑ 0
The proposed project would not permanently place people or structures on or near a known
earthquake fault. No impact is anticipated.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less than
Significant
Potentially
with
Less than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant No
Impact
Incorporation
Impact Impact
❑
❑
❑ 0
The proposed project would not permanently place people or structures on or near a known
earthquake fault. No impact is anticipated.
iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including
Less than
liquefaction?
Significant
Potentially
with
Less than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant No
Impact
Incorporation
Impact Impact
❑
❑
❑ 0
No permanent structures are proposed that would be affected by seismic -related ground failure.
iv) Landslides?
Less than
Significant
Potentially
with
Less than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant No
Impact
Incorporation
Impact Impact
❑
❑
❑ 0
The project is located in an area with steep slopes. The public currently uses both areas for
hiking. The proposed improvements would have a beneficial impact by providing a constructed
trail with retaining walls where required, reducing the likelihood of landslides on the trails.
b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion Less than
or the loss of topsoil? Significant
Potentially with Less Shan
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporation Impact Impact
❑ ❑ 0 ❑
5373 19 Draft IS/MND Palm Desert Trail Improvements
03/04/03
Ordinance No. 1034
Minor earthwork grading would occur along the trail routes, the majority of which are already in
use as trails and have been disturbed. Substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil is unlikely to
occur.
c) Would the project be located on a geologic unit or
Less than
soil that is unstable, or that would become
Significant
unstable as a result of the project, and potentially
Potentiallyg
Significant
Mitigation
Less than
SignificantNo
result in onsite or offsite landslide, lateral
Impact
Incorporation
Impact Impact
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
❑
❑
❑ 0
See the response to VI A iv.
d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as
Less than
defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building
Significant
Code (1994), creatingsubstantial risks to life or
Potential) y
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant No
property?
Impact
Incorporation
Impact Impact
❑
❑
❑ 0
The project does not involve the construction of structures that would be affected by expansive
soils. No impacts would occur.
e) Would the project have soils incapable of
Less than
adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or
Significant
disposal systems where
alternative waste water dis P Y
Potentially
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant No
sewers are not available for the disposal of waste
Impact
Incorporation
Impact Impact
water?
❑
❑
❑
The project does not involve the construction of a septic tank or alternative wastewater disposal
system. No impact would occur.
5373 20 Draft IS/MNO Palm Desert Trail Improvements
03/04/03
Ordinance No. 1034
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
a) Would the project create a significant hazard to
Less than
the public or the environment through the routine
Significant
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
Potentially
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant No
materials?
Impact
Incorporation
Impact Impact
❑
❑
❑ 0
There would be no routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials with this project.
b) Would the project create a significant hazard to Less than
the public or the environment through reasonably
Potentially
Significant
foreseeable upset and accident conditions Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant No
involving the release of hazardous materials into Impact
Incorporation
Impact Impact
the environment?
❑
0
❑ ❑
Construction equipment on the site would use materials such as fuel and oil. These materials
would be used on the site during construction, and would be removed on completion of the
project. With the implementation of measures from the projects Stormwater Pollution Prevention
Plan (SWPPP), required by the RWQCB, impacts would be less than significant.
c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or
Less than
handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
Significant
substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an
Potentially
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant No
existing or proposed school?
Impact
Incorporation
Impact Impact
❑
❑
❑ 0
There are no schools within 0.25 mile of the proposed project.
d) Would the project be located on a site which is
Less than
included on a list of hazardous materials sites
Significant
compiled pursuant to Government Code Section
Potentially
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant No
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
Impact
Incorporation
Impact Impact
significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
The site is not located on a list of hazardous materials sites (State of California Department of
Toxic Substances Control 1998). No impacts would result from the proposed project.
e) For a project located within an airport land use
Less than
plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
Significant
within two miles of a public airport or public use
p p p
Potentially
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant No
airport, would the project result in a safety hazard
Impact
Incorporation
Impact Impact
for people residing or working in the project area?
❑
❑
❑ 0
The sites are not located within an airport land use plan, or within 2 miles of a public or private
airport.
5373 21 Draft IS/MND Palm Desert Trail Improvements
03/04/03
Ordinance No. 1034
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
Less than
would the project result in a safety hazard for
Significant
people residing or working in the project area?
Potentially
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant No
Impact
Incorporation
Impact Impact
❑
❑
❑ El
The project is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip. No impacts would result from the
proposed project.
g) Would the project impair implementation of or
Less than
physically interfere with an adopted emergency
Significant
— — response Ian or emergency evacuation plan? --
p p 9 Y P
- Potential) y
Slgnifignt -
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant No
Impact
Incorporation
Impact Impact
❑
❑
❑ a
Project activity would not alter emergency response or emergency evacuation routes. Roadways
would not be blocked during construction or operation.
h) Would the project expose people or structures to a
Less than
significant risk of loss, injury or death involving
Significant
wildland fires, includingwhere wildlands are Potentially
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant No
adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences Impact
Incorporation
Impact Impact
are intermixed with wildlands?
Users of the trail system could be exposed to fires. However, this risk would not be different than
what currently exists, and a less than significant impact would result. Smoking and campfires
would be prohibited on the trails.
Vill. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
a) Would the project violate any water quality
Less than
standards or waste discharge requirements?
Significant
Potentially
with
Less than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant No
Impact
Incorporation
Impact Impact
❑
❑
❑ a
The project would not involve the use of or discharge of water, and would not violate water quality
standards or waste discharge requirements.
b) Would the project substantially deplete
Less than
groundwater supplies or interfere substantially
Significant
with groundwater recharge such that there would
Potentially
Significant
with Less than
Mitigation Significant No
be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of
Impact
Incorporation impact Impact
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)?
❑
❑ ❑ 0
The project would not require the use of groundwater.
5373 22 Draft IS/MND Palm DesTrail KMrovements
03/04/03
Ordinance No. 1034
c) Would the project substantially alter the existing
Less than
drainage pattern of the site or area, including
Significant
h the alteration of the course of a stream or Potentially
through Significant
with Less than
Mitigation Significant
river, in a manner which would result in substantial Impact
Incorporation Impact
erosion or siltation on- or offsite?
❑ ❑ 0 ❑
The project would improve existing informal trails to an approximately 6-foot width. This is a
relatively minor change in the landscape, and would not result in substantial erosion.
--d) Would -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 that would result in
flooding on- or offsite?
Less than
Significant
Potentially With
Significant Mitigation
Impact Incorporation
❑ ❑
Less than
Significant No
Impact Impact
No increases in impervious surface is proposed. The amount of surface water runoff with the
project would be similar to current conditions. The proposed project would not result in flooding
on- or offsite.
e) Would the project create or contribute runoff water
Less than
which would exceed the capacity of existing or
Significant
tanned stormwater drainage systems or provide
p 9 Y P
Potentially
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant No
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
Impact
Incorporation
Impact Impact
❑
❑
❑ 0
Construction or daily operation of the proposed project does not include the discharge of water
into any drainage courses. Therefore, the project would not affect existing stormwater drainage
systems.
f) Would the project otherwise substantially degrade
water quality? Potentially
Less than
Significant
With
Less than
Significant
Mifigation
Significant No
Impact
Incorporation
Impact Impact
❑
0
❑ ❑
The only potential to degrade water quality would be if any hazardous materials were accidentally
spilled from the construction equipment. However, the appropriate mitigations from the SWPPP,
required by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, would mitigate this impact.
g) Would the project place housing within a 100-year
Less than
flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood
Significant
Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or
Potentially
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less than
Significant No
other flood hazard delineation map?
Impact
Incorporation
Impact Impact
❑
❑
❑ a
The proposed project would not place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area.
5373 23 Draft IS/MND Palm Desert Trail improvements
03/04/03
Ordinance No. 1034
h) Would the project place within a 100-year flood
Less than
hazard area structures that would impede or
Significant
redirect flood flows?
Potentially
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant No
Impact
Incorporation
Impact Impact
13
❑
❑ 0
No structures would be built in the project area that would impede or redirect flood flows.
i) - Would -the -project expose people or structures to a
------Lmthan
significant risk of loss, injury or death involving
Significant
flooding, including flooding as a result of the
Potentially
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less than
Significant No
failure of a levee or dam?
Impact
Incorporation
Impact Impact
❑
❑
0 ❑
No buildings would be constructed with the proposed project. The Visitor Center Loop Trail is
partially located in an existing wash, which could be flooded during a storm. However,
recreational hikers are unlikely to use the trail during rainy conditions. The risk to hikers would be
the same as currently exists, and significant impacts would not occur.
j) Would the project inundation by seiche, tsunami,
Less than
or mudflow?
Significant
Potentially
With
Less than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant No
Impact
Incorporation
Impact Impact
❑
❑
❑ 0
Seiche, tsunami, or mudflow are not hazards in the project area. The project would not expose
people or structures to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING
a) Would the project physically divide an established Less than
community? Significant
Potentially With Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporation Impact Impact
❑ ❑ ❑ 0
The Visitor Center Loop Trail is located in a National Monument, and there are no established
communities. The Homme-Adams Trail is located in the City of Palm Desert, in an area of low -
density residential and open space land uses. Improving existing trails and providing a linkage
between trails would not be out of character with the area or divide the community.
5373 24 Dram IS/MND Palm Desert Trail Improvements
03/04/03
Ordinance No. 1034
b) Would the project conflict with any applicable land
Less than
use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with
Potentially
Significant
with
jurisdiction over the project (including, but not
Significant
Mitigation
limited to the general plan, specific plan, local
Impact
Incorporation
coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for
the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
❑
❑
Less than
Significant No
Impact Impact
❑ m
The project site's General Plan designation and zone allow for the proposed use. No impacts
would result.
c) Would the project conflict with any applicable
Less than
habitat conservation plan or natural community
Significant
conservation plan?
P
Potential) y
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant No
Impact
Incorporation
Impact Impact
❑
❑
❑ EZ
As described in Section IV f, the proposed project would not conflict with any habitat conservation
plan, or natural community conservation plan.
X. MINERAL RESOURCES
a) Would the project result in the loss of availability of
Less than
a known mineral resource that would be of value
Significant
ion and the residents of the state?
to the region
Potentially
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant No
Impact
Incorporation
Impact Impact
❑
❑
❑ 10
The project site is not used for mining, and no mining is proposed. There would be no impact.
b) Would the project result in the loss of availability of
Less than
a locally -important mineral resource recovery site
Significant
delineated on a local general plan, specific Ian or
9 P P P
Potentially
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant No
other land use plan?
Impact
Incorporation
Impact Impact
❑
❑
❑ 0
The project site does not contain locally important mineral resources.
XI. NOISE
a) Would the project result in exposure of persons to
Less than
or generation of noise levels in excess of
Significant
standards established in the local Ian general or
9 P
Potentially
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant No
noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other
Impact
Incorporation
Impact Impact
agencies?
❑
0
❑ ❑
5373 25 Drafl IS/MND Palm Desert Trail frrprovements
03/04/03
Ordinance No. 1034
The trail construction would take place using a small Bobcat, which is not expected to generate
sufficient noise to disturb sensitive receptors in the area. However, blasting may be required to
level the trail in some locations.
The following mitigation measure would reduce this impact to less than significant:
Mitigation Measure:
N-1 All blasting shall conform with all City of Palm Desert regulations including
construction hours, and special permits. All construction, including blasting, shall be
limited to between 7 a.m. and 6 p.m. Monday through Saturday.
b) Would the project result in exposure of persons to
Less than
or generation of excessive groundborne vibration
Significant
or groundborne noise levels?
Potentially
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant No
Impact
Incorporation
Impact Impact
❑
121
❑ ❑
Excessive groundborne vibration and noise levels are typically caused by activities such as
blasting used in mining operations, or the use of pile drivers during construction. The project may
require blasting. Impacts would be less than significant with the incorporation of Mitigation
Measure N-1.
c) Would the project result in a substantial
Less than
permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
Significant
vicinity above levels existing without the
project Y 9
Potentially
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant No
project?
Impact
Incorporation
Impact Impact
❑
❑
0 ❑
All noise generated by project construction would be temporary. After construction, there would
be no noise associated with the project.
d) Would the project result in a substantial temporary
Less than
or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the
Significant
vicinity above levels existing without the
project Y 9
Potentially
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant No
project?
Impact
Incorporation
Impact impact
❑
0
❑ ❑
As discussed in Section XI.a) above, short-term noise impacts from the proposed project are
impacts associated with the construction of the trails. These activities would result in short-term
noise levels that would be higher than the existing ambient noise levels in the project area today,
but would no longer occur once construction is complete. Mitigation Measure N-1 would reduce
these impacts to less than significant.
5373 26 Draft IS/MND Palm Desert Trail Improvements
03/04/03
Ordinance No. 1034
e) For a project located within an airport land use
Less than
plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
Significant
within two miles of a public airport or public use
Potentially
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant No
airport, would the project expose people residing
Impact
Incorporation
Impact Impact
or working in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
❑
D
❑ 0
The proposed project does not include residential or commercial development. The project is not
located with an airport land use plan, or two miles of a public airport or public use airport. No
impacts would occur.
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
Less than
would the project expose people residing or
Significant
working in the project area to excessive noise
Potentially
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant No
levels?
Impact
Incorporation
Impact Impact
❑
❑
❑ a
The project is not located with the vicinity of a private airstrip.
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING
a) Would the project induce substantial population
Less than
growth in an area, either directly (for example, by
Significant
proposing new homes and businesses) or
Potentiallywith
Significant
Mitigation
Less than
Significant No
indirectly (for example, through extension of roads
Impact
Incorporation
Impact Impact
or other infrastructure)?
❑
❑
❑ 0
The proposed project would not directly or indirectly induce population growth. The improved
trails would improve the existing system. The project would not induce new employment and no
new housing would be constructed.
b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of
Less than
existing housing, necessitating the construction of
Significant
replacement housing elsewhere?
Potentially
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant No
Impact
Incorporation
Impact Impact
❑
❑
❑ 0
No housing would be displaced by the project.
c) Would the project displace substantial numbers of
Less than
people, necessitating the construction of
Significant
replacement housing elsewhere?
Potentially
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant No
Impact
Incorporation
Impact Impact
❑
O
❑ 0
The project would not displace any people.
5373 2'T Draft IS/MND Palm Desert Tral Improvements
03/04/03
Ordinance No. 1034
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse
Less than
physical impacts associated with the provision of
Potentially
Significant
with Less than
new or physical) altered governmental facilities,
Y 9
t
Significant
Mitigation Significant No
need for new or physically altered governmental
Impact
Incorporation Impact Impact
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?
❑
❑ ❑ 0
The proposed project would not create a substantial new fire or public safety hazard. New
employment would not be generated that would affect the demand for schools, parks, or other
public facilities. The project would not result in the need for new or physically altered government
facilities nor affect response time or other performance objectives.
XIV. RECREATION
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
Less than
neighborhood and regional parks or other
Significant
recreational facilities such that substantial physical Potentially
P Y Significant
with Less man
Mitigation Significant No
deterioration of the facility would occur or be Impact
Incorporation Impact Impact
accelerated?
❑ ❑ 0 ❑
The proposed project may increase the number of users on both trails. However, the trails are
being improved to accommodate these users, resulting in a beneficial impact.
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
Less than
require the construction or expansion or
Significant
recreational facilities, which might have an
g
Potentially
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant No
adverse physical effect on the environment?
Impact
Incorporation
Impact Impact
❑
0
❑ ❑
The proposed project includes the improvement of existing informal trails and construction of
extensions to these trails, which would have an effect on the environment, as discussed in this
Initial Study. The mitigation measures described in this Initial Study would mitigate these
impacts.
5373 28 Drafl IS/MND Palm Desen Trail improvements
03104103
Ordinance No. 1034
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
a) Would the project cause an increase in traffic
Less than
which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic
Significant
load and capacity of the streets stem i.e., result
p Y Y (
Potentially
Significant
with Less than
Mitigation Significant No
in a substantial increase in either the number of
Impact
Incorporation Impact Impact
vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on
roads, or congestion at intersections)?
❑
❑ 0 ❑
The proposed project would generate a minimal amount of construction traffic on a temporary
-- basis. There would also be a minimat arnotmtof-operational traffic related to hikers travelling io —
the trailheads. However, these trails are currently used by hikers, and the additional traffic is not
anticipated to be sufficient to affect the existing volume to capacity ratio on roads or congestion at
intersections.
b) Would the project exceed, either individually or
Less than
cumulatively, a level of service standard
Significant
established b the count congestion
Y Y 9
Potentially
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant No
management agency for designated roads or
Impact
Incorporation
Impact Impact
highways?
❑
❑
0 ❑
See the answer to XV a.
c) Would the project result in a change in air traffic
Less than
patterns, including either an increase in traffic
Significant
levels or a change in location that results in
Potentially
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant No
substantial safety risks?
Impact
Incorporation
Impact Impact
❑
❑
❑ 0
The proposed project would not affect air traffic patterns.
d) Would the project substantially increase hazards
Less than
due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
Significant
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
Potentially
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant No
(e.g., farm equipment)?
Impact
Incorporation
Impact Impact
❑
❑
❑ 0
The project would have no effect on area roadway design nor cause any traffic/transportation
hazards.
e) Would the project result in inadequate emergency
Less than
access?
Significant
Potentially
with
Less than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant No
Impact
Incorporation
Impact Impact
❑
❑
❑ 0
The proposed project would not result in any changes to the existing emergency access system.
5373 29 Dratt ISrMND Palm Desert Trail Improvements
03/04/03
Ordinance No. 1034
f) Would the project result in inadequate parking
Less than
capacity?
Significant
Potentially
with
Less than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant No
Impact
Incorporation
Impact Impact
❑
❑
❑ 0
Sufficient parking currently exists at the BLM Visitor Center and parking is provided at the
trailhead at both Homme/Adams Park and Cahuilla Hills Park.
g) Would the project conflict with adopted policies,
Less than
plans, or programs supporting alternative--
-
significant
transportation e. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
P � 9•� Y ) •
Potentially
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant No
Impact
Incorporation
Impact Impact
❑
❑
❑ 0
The project does not conflict with adopted transportation policies.
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
a) Would the project exceed wastewater treatment
Less than
requirements of the applicable Regional Water
Significant
Quality Control Board?
Y
Potentially
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant No
Impact
Incorporation
Impact Impact
❑
❑
❑ 0
The project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements as there is no wastewater
treatment associated with the project.
b) Would the project require or result in the
Less than
construction of new water or wastewater treatment
Significant
facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
P 9
Potentially
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant No
construction of which could cause significant
Impact
Incorporation
Impact Impact
environmental effects?
The project would not require water and would not discharge wastewater.
c) Would the project require or result in the
Less than
construction of new stormwater drainage facilities
Significant
or expansion of existing facilities, the construction
p 9
Potentially
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant No
of which could cause significant environmental
Impact
Incorporation
Impact Impact
effects?
The proposed project would not require new stormwater facilities or the expansion of existing
facilities. No impacts would occur.
5373 30 Dratt ISIMND Palm Desert Trail Improvements
03104103
Ordinance No. 1034
d) Would the project have sufficient water supplies
Less than
available to serve the project from existing
Significant
entitlements and resources, or are new or
Potentially
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant No
expanded entitlements needed?
Impact
Incorporation
Impact Impact
❑
❑
❑ (21
The project does not require water service.
e) Would the project result in a determination by the
Less than
.-wastewater treatment provider which serves -or-- —
—
Significant
may serve the project that it has adequate
Y P 1 q
Potentially
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant No
capacity to serve the project's projected demand
Impact
Incorporation
Impact Impact
in addition to the provider's existing commitments?
The proposed project would have no connections to a wastewater treatment provider, thus no
increased demand in capacity would be required.
f) Would the project be served by a landfill with
Less than
sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the
Significant
ro ect's solid waste disposal needs
P ? 1 P
Potentially
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant No
Impact
Incorporation
Impact Impact
❑
❑
❑ 0
Plant material removed from the trail during construction would be scattered in the project area.
There would be no impacts to existing landfills.
g) Would the project comply with federal, state, and
Less than
local statutes and regulations related to solid
Significant
waste?
Potentially
with
Less than
Significant
Mifigation
Significant No
Impact
Incorporation
Impact Impact
❑
❑
❑ 0
The project would comply with solid waste statutes and regulations.
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
Less than
quality of the environment, substantially reduce
Significant
the habitat of a fish or wildlife s
species, cause a
P
Potentially
Significant
with Less than
Mitigation Significant No
fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
Impact
Incorporation Impact Impact
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, 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?
❑
❑ ❑ 0
5373 31 Draft ISrMND Palm Desert Trail Improvements
03/04/03
Ordinance No. 1034
The project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment and would not
have a significant impact on any fish or wildlife or their habitat. There would be no changes to the
groundwater basin and no cultural resources or examples of major periods of California history or
prehistory would be affected.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
Less than
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
Significant
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the
Potentially
Significant
with Less than
Mitigation Significant No
incremental effects of a project are considerable
Impact
Incorporation Impact Impact
when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects, and
the effects of probable future projects)?
— —------0—
--
❑ ❑ 0
The proposed project would not have impacts that are cumulatively considerable.
c) Does the project have environmental effects that
Less than
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
Significant
beings, either direct) or indirectly?
9 Y Y
Potentially
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant No
Impact
Incorporation
Impact Impact
❑
El
❑ ❑
The project would have short-term temporary construction impacts. These include noise from
blasting that would have the potential to cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly. These impacts would be mitigated to less than significant levels by
application of the measures presented in the above sections.
LIST OF PREPARERS
Chambers Group, Inc.
Linda Brody, Project Manager
Kathy Buescher Simon, Senior Biologist
Evelyn Chandler, Principal Archaeologist
Jay Sander, Senior Archaeologist
Jim Hall, GIS Manager
Anne Surdziai, AICP, Senior Environmental Analyst
REFERENCES
Blong, B. and W. Pollard. 1968. Summer Water Requirements of Desert Bighorn in the Santa
Rosa Mountains, California. California Department of Fish and Game 54: 289-296.
Bureau of Land Management. 1980. Santa Rosa Mountains Wildlife Habitat Management Plan:
A Sikes Act Plan. Riverside District Office. 56 pp + app.
Deforge, J. R. and J. E. Scott. 1982. Ecological Investigations into high Iamb mortality. Desert
Bighorn Council Transactions 1982:65-81.
Geist, V. 1971. Mountain Sheep: A Study in Behavior and Evolution. The University of Chicago
Press. Chicago and London. 383 pp.
5373 32 Draft ISIMND Pa)m Desert Trail Improvements
03/04/03
Ordinance No. 1034
Goodson, N. J., D. R. Stevens, K. McCoy, J. Cole. 1999. Effects of River Based Recreation and
Livestock Grazinq on Desert Bighorn Sheep on the Navajo Station. Second North
American Wild Sheep Conference, April 6-9, 1999. Reno NV.
Hansen, C. G. and O. V. Deming. 1980. Growth and Development in Monson and Sumner, eds. The Desert Bighorn: Its Life History, Ecology, and Management. University of Arizona
Press, Tucson.
King, M. M. and G.W. Workman. 1986. Response of Desert Bighorn Sheep to Human
Harassment: Management Implications. Transactions of the 515 North American Wildlife
and Natural Resource Conference.
- -Lighter. T-and R. Weaver. 1973. Report on Bighorn Sheep Habitat -Study in the Area for which
an Application was Made to Expand the Mt. Baldy Winter Sports Facility. USDA Forest
Service Cajon Ranger District, San Bernardino National Forest. 39 pp.
MacArthur, R. A., R.H. Johnston, V. Geist. 1979. Factors Influencing Heart Rate in Free -
Ranging Bighorn Sheep: A Physiological Approach to the Study of Wildlife Harassment.
Canadian Journal of Zoology 57(10): 2010-2021.
MacArthur, R. A., V. Geist, and R.H. Johnston. 1982. Cardiac and Behavioral Responses of
Mountain Sheep to Human Disturbance. Journal of Wildlife Management 46(2): 351-358.
Martucci, P. W., D. A. Jessup, G. A. Grant, J. A. Reitan, and W. E. Clark. 1992. Blood Gas and
Catecholamine Levels in Capture -Stressed Bighorn Sheep. Journal of Wildlife Diseases
28(2): 250-254.
McCarty, M. C. and J. A. Bailey. 1994. Habitat Requirements of desert bighorn sheep. Special
Report No. 69. Colorado Division of Wildlife. Denver, Colorado.
Monson, G. and L. Sumner. 1980. The Desert Bighorn: Its Life History, Ecology, and
Management. University of Arizona Press. Tucson.
Papouchis, C. M., F. J. Singer, and W. Sloan. 2000. Effects of Increasing Recreational Activity
on Desert Bighorn Sheep in Canyonlands National Park, Utah. Pages 364-391 in Singer,
F. J. and M. A. Gudorf. Restoration of bighorn sheep metapopulations in and near 15
national parks: conservation of a severely fragmented species. USGS Open File. Report
99-102, MidContinent Ecological Science Center, Fort Collins, CO.
Purdy, K. G. and W. W. Shaw. 1981. An Analysis of Recreational Use Patterns in Desert
Bighorn Habitat: The Pusch Ridge Wilderness Case. Desert Bighorn Council
Transactions 25: 1-5.
Risenhoover, K. L. and J. A. Bailey. 1985. Foraying Ecology of Mountain Sheep: Implications for
Habitat Management. Journal of Wildlife Management 49(3): 797-804.
Risenhoover, K. L., J. A. Bailey, L. A. Wakelyn. 1988. Assessing the Rocky Mountain bighorn
management problem. Wildlife Society Bulletin 16: 346-352.
Sander, Jay and Evelyn N. Chandler. 2002. Cultural Resources Inventory of the Homme-Adams
and Visitor Center Loop Trails, Riverside Coutny, California. Prepared for the City of Palm
Desert and the U.S. Bureau of land Management, North Palm Springs, California. Prepared
by Chambers Group, Inc., Redlands, California.
5373 33 Draft IS/MND Palm Desert Trail Irroovements
03/04/03
Ordinance No. 1034
Scott, Eric. 2002. Paleontology Literature and Records Review, Trail Improvements, South Palm
Desert, Riverside County, California. Prepared by Curator of Paleontology, Division of
Geological Sciences, San Bernardino County Museum, Redlands, California. Submitted to
Chambers Group, Inc., Redlands, California. December.
State of California Department of Toxic Substances Control. Hazardous Waste and Substances
Sites List, Government Code Section 65962.5.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2002. Draft Environmental Impact
Statement for the Draft California Desert Conservation Area Plan Amendment for the
Coachella Valley and the Draft Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains Trails Management
Plan. June
Wagner, G. D. and J. M. Peek. 1989. Activity Patterns of Rocky Mountain Bighorn Ewes in
Central Idaho. Second North American Wild Sheep Conference. April 6-9, 1999. Reno,
NV.
Wakelyn, L. A. 1987. Changing habitat conditions on bighorn sheep ranges in Colorado.
Journal of Wildlife Management 51: 904-912.
Wehausen, J. D. 1980. Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep: History and Population Ecology Ph.D.
Dissertation, University of Michigan. 243 pp.
5373 34 Draft IS/MIND Palm Desert Trail Improvements
03/04/03