PAGE 1 Show Image
VOLUME II
FINAL
EiNVIRONMENTAL D~IPACT REPORT
FOR THE
COUNTY OF ~IPERIAL GL~IRAL PLAN
COMMENTS AiND RESPONSES
Prepared for:
County of Jmperial
Planning Department
940 West Main S~~t
El Centro, California 92Z43-2875
Prepared by:
Brian F. Moonev Associates
9903-B Businesspark Avenue
San Diego, California ~~~l3l
May 1993
PAGE 2 Show Image
INTRODU~ON
This volume of the Final Environmental Impact Report for the County of Imperial General Plan
contains the comments received during public review of the Draft EIR, and the responses to
those comments. A total of 23 comment letters were received, and these letters contain a total
of 780 specific comments. A list of the agencies and individuals who submitted comments, and
the associated comment numbers, is provided on the subsequent page. This list is followed by
all the comment letters, and then the responses to all comments.
PAGE 3 Show Image
DRAFT EIR LETTERS ~ COND~~NT NL~IBERS
Coniment
Name Numbers
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - March 1, 1993 145
Bureau of Land Management - March 18, 1993 4&92
California Department of Transportation - March. 8, 1993 93-101
California Integrated Waste Management Board - Febru~~~ 25, 1993 102-103
California Regional Water Quality Control ~ - Febr~~~ 25,1993 104-1()6
California River Board of California - March 16.1993 107-123
Imperial County Department of Public Works - N{arc.~ 2Z. 1993 124-143
Imperial Irrigation District - March 22, 1993 144-172
Metropolitan Water District of Southern Cali fbrr~L~a - Mar;. 22.1993 173-211
Coachella Valley Water District - February 3,1 ~3 212-216
Southern Pacific Lines - March 22, 1993 217-223
Southern California Association of Governments SC AG - M~~h 10, 1993 224-232
City of Brawley - March 15,1993 233-238
City of Calexico - March 22, 1993 239-247
City of Calipatria - March 2, 1993 248-257
City of El Centro - March 22, 1993 258-265
City of Imperial - March 5, 1993 266-275
El Centro Chamber of Commerce - March 17 ~3 276
El Centro Regional Medical Center - March 22. ~3 277-2S6
PAGE 4 Show Image
DRAFF EIR LETFERS AND COMMENT NUMBERS
Comment
Name Numbers
Sierra Club, San Diego Chapter - March 22, 1993 287-771
Glenn L. Gearhart - March 15, 1993 772-774
Sutherland & Gerber - March 22, 1993 775
Edith Harmon - March 17, 1993 77&780
ii
PAGE 5 Show Image
COMMENT LETTERS
PAGE 6 Show Image
PAGE 7 Show Image
United States Department of the Interior AMERICA
FISH AND WILDLIFE S£RVIC£ -
Salton Sea National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Post Office Box 120
Calipatria, California 92233-0120
larch 1, 1993
Ar. Jurg ~euberger Planning Director -.-. --
Imperial County Planning Department
939 Aain Street MAR O4~93
~l Centro, CA 92243-2856
~UI:1~D,::.~G ~
Dear Ar. Heuberger,
Thank y~u for the opportunity to review the draft ~IR for the County or
:mperial General Plan Revision. Anv discussion concerning mitigation should
be conducted with biologists in our enhancement office located n Carlsbad,
California. Following are specific suggestions~ itemized by page number,
toward improving the Draft.
image lI-7c. Include national wildlife refuge, state parks, etc.
7age Ill-Il. The southern area of the Salton Sea is a U.S. Fish and Wildif~
2~Service National Wildlife Refuge and should be depicted as such under 3 (showr
Las 8 on figure 3).
;age 111-20. The Aesquite Lake SPA also contains duck clubs which harbor an
~IimpQrtant sandhill crane (California threatened) winter roost site. Aany
Lndustrial uses may not be compatible with this roost.
sage 111-47. The correct name is U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The US~~S
41Ls currently conducting studies of the pesticide DDT and its metabolites on
LLscivorous birds.
sage 111-50. Non~agricultural development that does not adjoin at least one
of an existing urban use may in some cases also constitute a significant
51 impact to wildlife species which utilize the area as habitat. This is also a
good mitigation measure towards decreasing fragmentation of agricultural lands
used by wildlife species.
sage 111-51. These agricultural buffer zones will also provide needed buffer
6 zones for wildlife species which may be utilizing agricultural lands.
~ge 111-52. A significant impact of the Aesquite Lake SPA may be the
~I disturbance of the sandhill crane roost. This should be discussed in more
detail with mitigation measures included.
Fare 111-53. Will ~jtigation for the Interstate 3/SR Ill SPA, which brings
81 suitable off-site replacement land into agricultural productions have any
Lmoacts to currently undeveloped wildlife habitat?
Page 111-54. Same comment as 111-53 for Tamarack Canvon and Bravo Ranch SPA.
PAGE 8 Show Image
~page 111-87. Plants and Vegetative Habitats. In this section, you fail to
101 adequately mention important wetland plant communities and vegetation. Sedge,
cattails, rush, and bulrushes would not be located in the overstory of wetland
plant communities.
Fage 111-89. Wildlife. In the second paragraph, it would be more accurate to
11~ say "2) those which are seemingly tolerant of the agricultural activities
Ljccurring in the Valley;."
sage 111-89. Fish. At the end of the first paragraph, it would be more
accurate to say that the `I... pupfish is a native fish found in the Salton
12~ Sea, whitewater River, San Felipe Creek, Salt Creek, and at least 72% of all
agricultural drains at the Sea."
Page 111-89. Amphibians and Reptiles. Add 4oodhouse's toad to the list of
amphibians. Delete Sonoran mud turtle and spiny softshell turtle from
amphibian list and add them to reptile list. You list both "Barefoot banded"
and "magic gecko" as separate species, actually barefoot gecko and magic gecko
are two names for the same animal, with "barefoot gecko" being the generally
accepted common name. Use one of these names consistently throughout the
13 draft and tables. Banded gecko is a separate species which needs to be added
to `Tour list of "typical" soecies. Change "western iguana" to desert iguana.
Change "Colorado fringe-toed lizard" to Colorado Desert fringe-toed lizard.
change "western rattlesnake" to western diamondback rattlesnake. Add long-
nosed snake, rosy boa, leaf-nosed snake, shovel-nosed snake, speckled
rattlesnake, and western ground snake to your list of "typical" species.
Page 111-90. Birds In the first paragraph at least 378 bird species and 41
mammal species have been documented in Imperial County. It would be more
accurate to state that "The food potential of cultivated areas is a
14 contributor to the broad range of bird species frequenting the County,
however a£ricultural rilonocultures generallv produce low diversitv of wildlife
species." In the third paragraph it would be more accurate to state "The
diversity of resident bird species is relatively low..."
Page 111-90. mammals. In the uiiddle of the first paragraph house mouse
should be added. "Brush rabbit" should be changed to desert cottontail
rabbit. It wouldbe most accurate to state that "bats... are found in all
areas of Imperial County due, in oart. to agricultural canals. which provide
15 abundant insects and reliable water sources. It is also true that
agricultural pesticides have greatlv led to the demise of bat populations in
the U.S. In the second paragraph, "desert and blacktail jackrabbit," should
be changed to only "blacktail jackrabbit."
In figure 11 of Sensitive Plants, r.~ildlife Areas and Unusual Plant
Assemblages, the areas depicting flat-tailed horned lizard and desert tortoise
16 need to be expanded :0 be accurate. Add the sandhill crane roosting area near
the town of Imperial to :his figure. This roost is important in maintaining
the wintering pooulation of his threatened species within the Imperial
Valley.
See the attached input from `~s on Table L4 of Sensitive Animal Species in
17~ I~erial County ~o sake he information more accurate. It may be appropriate
PAGE 9 Show Image
to list bird species in the order listed by the American ornithologist's
17 Union.
?age 111-106. Fish. In the first paragraph, it would be most accurate to
state that "... pupfish occurs within the Salton Sea. san Felipe Creek.
feeding the Sea." In the third paragraph, it is not accurate to state that
18 "Designated critical habitat.. at best contains unstable populations of desert
pupfish." It would be more accurate to state that "Designated
habitat... protects populations of desert Dupfish which are generallv
increasing throughout the Salton Sea ecosvstem."
~ge 111-106. Amphibians and Reptiles. Listing of the flat-tailed horned
lizard is imminent and must be planned for. In the third paragraph it would
191 be appropriate to mention that the U.S. Fish and `~ildlife Service is currently
~reParin~ a listing package for the flat-tailed horned lizard which will be
listen as a threatened or endangered species.
?age 111-107. Birds. In the second paragraph it would be most accurate to
state that 1'Agricultural areas in the County provide important habitat for
e *e u as t e sandhi crane whic ut e wet a d oo tin a eas
20 betwee raw ev and Im e ial and ora es throu hout the Va 1ev " The Imperial
Valley contains populations of both greater and lesser subspecies of sandhill
crane. Several plans including the City of Imperial Annexation and the
Imperial County enterprise Zone. have the potential to affect this roost with
further development in these areas. Therefore, include more discussion on
The U.S. Fish and 4ildlife Service Enhancement Field Office in Carlsbad should
be informed of any plan within the county with the potential to affect any
federally listed species or their habitat in order to initiate formal
21 consultation as provided under the Endangered Species Act. A discussion of
each of these listed and proposed species, as listed in this DEIR. should be
included with a more thorough discussion of each species' habitat.
sage 111-108. mammals. It is ~`io5t accurate to state that "Agricultural areas
in the County provide foraging habitat for some bat species through the
22t availabilitv of water and flvin£ `nsects. Agricultural pesticides however
Lan have a negative impact on bat oopulations.
23~ge 111-113. Replace wintering with migrant bird species.
~ If crayfish are indeed a sensitive species, please provide more
25~Page 111-120. Correct name is Colorado Desert fringe-toed lizard.
~Page 111-123. It should be noted rhat the Pacific Flyway management Plan
I specifically mentions the crane roost Located near Imperial and calls for the
261 roost's future protection. The Mesquite Lake SPA, City of Imperial
vexation, and Imperial Countv :-nter~rise Zone may produce results which
could become conflicting with this Management Plan.
PAGE 10 Show Image
~ge 111-125. Agriculture/Pesticide Spraying. Your treatment of this topic
271 should include a discussion of impacts to other insectivorous wildlife
~cluding birds and bats.
281 Page 111-126. Roads and Transmission Lines. Your treatment of this topic
~~ould include a discussion of direct powerline mortality to birds.
Page 111-129. Off-Highway Vehicles. Your treatment of this topic should
29 include a discussion of direct impact by ORV's on desert reptiles and other
wildlife through crushing and harassment, along with destruction of habitat.
1-126. The USFWS has completed the Drainwater Study. Research currentlv
30 conducted includes levels of DDE (a DDT metabolite) and its effect on
piscivorous birds.
Page 111-129. An extension of the Ocotillo sells State Vehicle Recreation
Area into flat-tailed horned lizard habitat may require formal consultation
311 with ~he USFWS Enhancement Field Office in Carlsbad pending listing of this
species.
~~ge 111-130. Include a discussion of the impacts of mining on the federally
threatened desert tortoise. Formal consultation with USFWS would be recuired
321 for any such activities in desert tortoise habitat. Also include a discussion
of possible effects of cyanide leaching ponds to migratory birds. and a
discussion of habitat destruction due to mining.
Fage 111-130. Who will pay for a qualified biologist to design site-specific
mitigation measures? Include more of a discussion on how this process sill be
33i implemented, and how the responsible agency (planning dept.) will enforce his
~~connaissance and report from a biologist. 4
~ge III -132. Revegetation with native species should be a concept for all
eve opments, not just those contiguous with undisturbed wildlife habitat.
~eotropical migrants and resident nesting birds would all benefit from native
vegetation in residential areas.
3 ~e 111-195. Include a discussion of the mining activities on visual
5 resources (i.e. Cargo ~uchacho Mts., LMesquite sine, etc.).
Page 111-200. Itmay be misleading to state abnormalities in wildlife have
361 not been detected since no studies to-date have been completed which studied
aspect.
111-203. Include a discussion of quantity of water discharged to
371 drainage systems as a result of urbanization with the resulting effect on
drains and the Sal ton Sea.
Page 111-204. Water conservation is generally accepted as a good idea.
However, in the case of the Salton Sea, decreased amounts of water inflow ~av
381 result in higher concentrations of salt and contaminants. If water
conservation is desired, implementation of graded water costs to oriva~e
residences could be required.
39~~ge IV-3. Include more discussion of the conversion of currently undeveloped
land here and elsewhere where appropriate in this docuinent. ~here is his
PAGE 11 Show Image
land located? ~~here is the land not o~~ed bv 3~~? Th~at is zhe land's current
39Lse? What wildlife species could be affecter?
~ge V-6. A decrease in water run-off due tc co~-e~5ion of agricultural to
401 urban uses could result in increasing salt a~ c:nta:uinant concentrations in
water.
sage ~X-8. If the majority of the land is BLM, -rio ohms the remainder? Any
411 projects which would affect flat-tailed horned Izard habitat would require
formal consultation with ~FWS.
sage IX-24. Include a discussion of where t~e areas are where agriculture
421 would be allowed as compared to the 1973 Oene~~ ~1an which ~iaintained these
areas as ?reservation.
~ge D-4. Correct the scientific name spellings of antelope ground squirrel,
cactus mouse, mule deer, hispid cotton ra:, ~or~~-~v ~ and whitet~~oated
431 woodrat. The bird list is only partial. and sh~'~d include ~nv additional
~ecies found in the county, including several secies which frequent
agricultural lands.
~~ge D-7. The reptile list should include tL~ose ~e~tioned under comments for
page 111-89.
45~ge D-8. See comments for page 111-89.
I hope these comments are useful in the oofn~let:n ~f your -`craft. If vou have
any questions, or require further discuss-on oi-:ase contac nie at (619) 348-
5278.
S Lncer:-L~ -
/7,
//
Aarc :. ?~d1~e
~~~dlLfe B~ologis:
PAGE 12 Show Image
Ill. [:nvi(onrncn~&i Analysie
TAUI~f 14
SFNSITIVE ANIMAL SPL"Cll~ IN I~II~EItIAl~ COUNTV,
Species Stat~is & Atitlionty Status lit liiiperi~~I Coillity I I.~l)it~~t I~~c(Li~cIIL'~ LA~aIc
~onyt~il cl~isb Staic - cndangcrcd Po5~il)ly cXII~)aIcd l:(c~lIwutcr ~j~ijit~~, ~I~cuiiis, fivcr5, Lt)wcr Colora'do RIVC(
Gila eIegan~ Fcdcral - cndangcrcd a'~ricuitiir~I JriiIii~ Irri~utioi~
~1iuI)iicl£, pni~~l~ likc~
Colorudo uquawfi5ll Si~tc - spccial conccm Possibly cxtir1)at~d lrc~liwuicr ~lb(iii~5, ~tr~uiiis, (IVC(5~ l~owcr Colorado Rivcr
P(ychvch~iIi~s Ii~cii~ rcdcral - catcgory 2 a'~riciilItirul dra'11i5, jrri~ation
cliiiiii~cl~, 1)()Iid~, l~kca'1 rca'c~oir~
,]~LJn)pback (or raio~i~ck) suckcr Sta~tc - cndangcrcd Lxtr~-ii~cly rari:; a'dtilta' ii~iiy still lrc~liwu,i~r ~l)Iiii~~, ~trc~iii~ riv~r~, l~o~~ibly Scna'ior \Ya~lt at lowcr
A'yrai*cI~en I~anits Fcdcral - cndangcrcd l)cr~i~t in a' fcw backw~Icr arc~~ agricIilii;[tal ~lr~iii~, irri~uiion Colorado l4ivcr
cIdillIcIs, 1)tiiid~, lakc~, rc~crvoirs -
dc~crt pu1)fi5l~ StAtc - cnd~i~gcrc4 SiJil)lc; l)rcscnt iii iii l~i~7'Y~'~f Sli~bri:liii~ l)(~L)l~ of 5itlt~iii .~cii, slow- (S~n Fcli1)c aud ~1iiicwaicr Crcck5,~
~prinodon ,,iacj~larius Fcdcral - cndai~~crcd a~riciili~irul driiiii~ ii~oviiig ~t(ciiiii~ with ~uii~l-5ili ~tilion Sca National Wildlifc Rcfugc
btil)~i ruic, rcfLIgiLiIIi l)')iid~ , ~liall'~w
~vatcrs, agriculiural druiii~;
&I~)LII~dil i~t a' l~uc
Colorado kivcr toad Stuic - ~pccial COiIccrit Dccliiiiit~ Sjirii~~~, ~IrL:aIii~, (L:~cfv~)iI~; Lowcr Colorado ~ivcr
13i~fo aI~ariiLr raiigii~~ fr~~iit ari(l IitL:~~~iIitL:-crc()~oIc
liii~li lowlaitd~ to ouk-sycatiture
Itt()iiIltliili CItII~E)it5
coucl~'5 ~1)adL:fooL toad Staic - a'l~cial conccri~ Ui~ki~own SIrL:aiIts, tcIitl)orai.y l~ols, lakcs, L"a~Icrn cdgc of Algodoncs Donc~
ScaphIop~4s coI4chii rC3CfvO~(S, i)Iar~ltci
lowland 1c01)ard frog Staic - sf}~c-ial conccrn Vcry rarc; 1~ssibly cxiirpaicd frotit L)cscrt sircaii~s and lx)ol~; ii~ay San Fcli1)c Crick
Rana ya~'apa~nsis San rc1i1)c Crcck occur in agricultural drauts
tliroo~ltntit lIiil)crial ValIcy
Sonoran mod tititlc Statc - 3l)~ial coitccrii £`xtrciiicly rar£: Strcaiit~, l)ackwaici*~ ~if Colorado I~owcr Colorado Rivcr (old rc~ords),
Kinosiernan sonorieMe l4ivcr ncar Palo Vcrdc and Yuina Indian
Rcscrvalion
dcscil Iortoisc Statc - LJtrcatcncd Fairly coitinion, btit dccliiiiii~ iii Dcscrt Oa~c6, rivcil)aitks, wa~lic~, ~ Coonty~
Oop~ier~~ ag~L~LzI Fc(1cral - Ilircatcnc(1 nortlicasicrn ~~rtion of Cotiuly; donc:1' crcosolc a'ci'ib -----...-.- __________-~
cxtrciiicly raro iii rciiiaiiiiii~ Ca~(Cfli ~ ~ I
ln~l)crial Coutity I.
-`ritni EIR For The County Of Imperial Gencritl Plait 111.19
PAGE 13 Show Image
________________________________________________________________________ Ill. EnvI, *,Iai Analysis
TABLE 14
SENSITIVE ANIMAL SI)I~CIL?S IN I~II~i~'I~IAL COUNTS
Sp{~cies Status & Authority Stattis Ii~ Irtiperial Cotinty IIttl)it~t I~L'ference Locale
barefooL banded gecko State - threatened l~are Rock dweller; ranging from Native desert 0 Ufle ft I LI
Colconyx swifaki Feden~I - category 2 crcosotc scrub flats 10 tl~e pinon- Imperial County
jiinipcr belt; dry (lcscrt ~ Vi.
fli~t-tailcd horned lizard State - special concern Population trends allow dcclines ovcr Duncs and sandy flats of low Yulla Desert, West Mesa, ~sL
Phrynosorna incalli Federal - category 1 pasl 10 years dc~ert; spur~cfbarrcn vegctation Mesa, Algodonea Dunea1 Salton Sea
Navy Test Base, San Sebastian
Marsh, upland areaa of San Felipo
Creek ACEC
Colorado Desert fring~toed lizard State - special concern Stable Dunca, rivcli)anks, waslics; Algodones Dunca, Salton Sea'Navy
Urna nolala nolala Federal - category 2 crcosote scrub or scailt vegetation; Test Baae, East Meaa, Bat Cave
dry desert Buttes, Glamis Dunes, Superstition
~1ountain
common loon State - apecial concern Uncommon migrant igi spring aud Open lakes, bays, sea Salton Sea
Gaviahnrner Federal - senaitive fall; remaining in winter alolig
Colorado River
western grebe State - watch list Common breeduig migrant Rushy lukes, t)ays Salton Sea
Aechrnophori~ occidenialti Blue list - special concern throughout the year at Salton Sea;
very localued breeding resident
along Colorado River
Anierican white pelican State - special concern Fairly common nugrailt iii spring aud Lakc~, salt buys, iiiarslics ~F[esliwatcr inlets at Salton Sea
Pelecanus erylhrorhyncho3 Federal - sensitive summer, common visitor in (all and
winier at Salton Sea; rare migralit iii
aummer and winter along Colorado
River
Cali(oniia brown pclican State - endangered l~are visitor in winter and spring, Coastul suIt wutcr and 0l)CII t)ccan Salion Sea
I'clecanl~ occldenialu cahfonilcis Federal - endangered common visitor in sunimer, casunl
visitor in fall at Saltogi Sca;
nonbreediiig visitor in s~iiiiiiier aud
fall along Colorudo River
IlI~20 DraLt l)rogragii EIR For The County Of Imperial General Plan
k
PAGE 14 Show Image
III. Eg~vj(og~II1cfltaj A~)nIy8I8
TABLI' 14
SLI'NS1~1'lVi~ ANI1\IAL SI'LCIES IN [~11~LE1~1AL COUNTS
Specie St.'~Ii~ & Authoilty ~ lit l5IIl)Liiatl Coihity ll~ibi~at l~rc(crcuicc ~LA)cale
doubI~rcsIcd cor!no(anL SIAIC - 61)ccial CO[1CC(II rai(Iy coIllIlion b(ccdiIIg icsIdcuit Rivc(5, lakcs, bay., (c3c~Oir:; Salio~ Sca ~
Plialacrocorax aur~Ius [3luc ll~L - local coitcc~ii tli(ou~tout tl~c ycar at SalLoi' Sri; iicsL£ coloitially lii Ircc: on l~ ~ V'
coiliii)on locallzcd b[c~li1~ (caiddit ii1a(~iiis ~
iliroii~liouI Ilic ~cii( aluii~ Colo(ado
~ivcr
wc41cm l~aI bitlcni Sluic - sj)ccl~l C()i~CC~iL Coil)iIioii (cSlJCiiI lii Suiiiii)C(1 Cuttail nla(alic: i'Ca( IOU(CC8 of Salion S~ .IioreLLii~
hobrychus ~iIu he~pcru Fcdcial - catc~ofy 2 ulicuilililoli (csjdciiL iii whiter ((csliwaIc(
[3luc ll~i
/cJdi~h cgrcl Stale - succial COIICC[Ii Accldciital OCCU(iCiiCC Slio(cliiics, ag(1cultu(al d(ains, Salton Sca aliO(clinc
Egr~ita rufc~cens l~cdc(iil - ciitc~o~y 2 ficIds
~(cat bluc l~c~on 13luc list - local coiicc~it l~ai(ly coilililuil lucali'Lc(l b(ccJiIig Mudliats, iiiu(51ic5, swaii~ps, ah (CS Salto~ Sca slio(eliflc
Ard~a ~icrO(II~ (CS idciit lit wliitC(,' colililion iiii~(aiit
iii ¶.~)(iiig, Stiiiiiiic( and fall
blackc(owiicd nii,'lii lic(oi~ liluc list - local coiicciii lili(ly Coilililoil localiicd (c5l~lCiit Fo(u~Cs u(ouiid l((l~iltloii cliann S, Sulton Sca slio(Clilic
~c~icorax flycIicor~ ~ioaicIi tli(ou~li&iiit the yci( lakesliorcs, f(CSILWaIC( ii)a(511C5;
(00513 In ~(OVCS of t(CC3 du(Ul'~
iiildday
~iit~faccd ibis State - sliccIlil coiicc[ii l:ai(ly coillilioli b(ccdiiig (csldciit Shallow f(csliwulc( 1~iids, l((l~ut liiipcrial Valley Agrieultu(al lields
~IegwI~ ci ilil r-c&lc[ill - ciilcg()iy 2 tli(iiiigli(iiit the yciir a~riculturiil fields ~ ~ ~
~ood stork Slate 5l)ccIill coucci ii Suiiiiiic( uligraul at Siiltoii Sca Shallow 1~iids lii11~flIL~il'llife A(ea (I Ia ~rd I
AIycieri~~ ufli~rjcafl(i flCa( RcJ 11111
fulvous whistliug duck Stale - sl)ccial cuiiccrii l~aii ly coiiiiiiuii (but (lccliiiiiig) Dciise cattail iiia fsliCs aud adjaecnt South cttd of Salton Sca National
D~n~ro~ygna bicolor [:cdc(al - ciitcg()iy 2 rc~idciit iii suiiiiiicf, (ciiiliiiiiiig rardy shallow watC( Wildlifc 5(efuge, finney Lake,
iii wiiitcr; vcry ra~c u( cusual vi~ito( fresliwatc( iiiipoundiiici~ts abovc the
iii siiiiiiiicr aloug Ciili)rii~lo l(ivcr iiioutli of Alamo ~lVC(
Aleutlaii Cai~ada gooic f-cderal - tlircatciic~l Cuiiiiiioii vlsIto( iii wiiitc(, VC(~ ~1aiiagcd habitats, wildlife refugcw, Salton Sca National Wildlife Rcfuge
Brunia caiiodcijiu Icucoporeiu illiuii&laiit arouiid Siiltoii Sea, fo(agca Iii grahi fiddi iiea( lakes
Ijica li,.c&l al~iiig (;i)li)i iiil~i l~ ivcr agid 1~iids
13a[i.ow'5 goldeucyc Slate - sliccial cuiicc(ii Accidciitiil occuiiciice Iii wiutef Mudilats, iiiai'~lies, Ul)Cit water Salton Sca
UuC(pIi(~lu ~ItiiLdjc~
D[~~ l~rograin L l~ or lic Couiity 0 iiilic(ial beucral `laii I- I
PAGE 15 Show Image
Ill. ~vlronn~~ai AnalysIs
TAI~LL? 14
S£'NSITIVE ANIMAL SI~£'Cl£'S IN IMP£'l~lAI COUNTV~
Species _____ St~ttis & Authority St~It~ In In~perial County IIal)it~t rrcrcrencc Lkcule
goldcn eaglc State - special concern Casual visitor in winter along Grasslands, brokc'i cl~al)arral or An~-Borrego Desert State Park
Aq~1ia chrysacIo~ Colorado River, uncommon resident sage scrub; soars all ovcr; i~ests In
throughout il~e year elsewlicre rugged guougilalgis
prairie falcon Slate - special concern Uncommon; most o~cn oliserved Olin dcscrt ~cr'ili aud grasslands, lml)(:rial Valley agricultural fields
fako in~icanI~ soaring over agricultural fields in agriculitiral areas; ncsts iii cliffs or
Imperial Valley or perclicd on utility rocky oiitcrol)liings
poles
American peregrine falcon State - endangered Rare migrant and iton-breeding Oases, iiiud flats, shores, or 1~iids Sallon Sea shoreline, New Rivcr
Falco peregrirlus anaIii~n Federal - endangered visitor in summer at Salton Sca; rare with oIlier water lurds; nests iii cliff dclta, Morton Bay
migrant and casual visitor throughout faccs near coastal estuaries
the year elsewhere
osprey State - special concern Uncoijignon to rare iiiii,'ruiil Large litlaud lakc~ in foothills aud Saltoit Sea, lower Colorado River
Poadlon haIiaeii~ Blue list - local concern Ilirotigliotil the year iiiouiitain areas
nierlin State - s1)ccial cogicern Rare migrant in fall aud winter ~Iusl o~eii secit soariug ovcr liiil~rial Valley agricultural fields
Falco coIu,nbarii~ agricultural areas iii liuperial Valley
California black rail State - threatened Uncoiiiinon to rare localued resideut l~resliwatcr bulitisli iiiar~lies Salton Sea National Wildlife Refuge,
Laicrallis jaJnaicc7isis coii~rnjciiIi~s Federal category 1 in summer; fairly coinguon resi&leiit Finney Lake, Seeley1 Niland1 Salt
at Impenal Daiii in spring and Creek1 Imperial Dam, Carrizo Marsh
suii~iiier in ~
Y~iina clapper rail State - threatened Fairly coillilion resident in stiii~ii~cr, £`1ilieiiieral fre~liwater ii~ar~lies Soon Sea and Imperial National
RalliLs lo~igirosIrL~ yii~~ianeflsis Federal - cndangere(l tine&iiiii~~iin residegit in ~vinter at consisting of pure cattails and Wildlife Refuges, New and Alamo
Saltoii Sea; fairly eoii~nioii to nislies to iiiargiiial stauds of eai Rivers, Wiutewater River, Salt
common resident in stiii~mer, rarc iii and floodcd salt ee&lar Creek
whiter along Colorado River ~ ,~ \~(YL~~U~tt
greater sandlull crane State - threatened Common visitor in whiter Grasslands aud agricultural fieltls ~~w~p,~Brawley and El Centro,
Grin canadc~~is iablda Federal - sensitive Cibola Na~bTisl~WildlifCJWuge~
lower Coloratlo River
willow flycatcher State - eudangered Fairly comii~on 10 Ci)liiiiiOii migrant Amoug aity trees or large senibs; Lower Colorado River
,.~ bipidoriax ira Illil ~~Iimi~ Federal - category I throtigliout the year; very rare nests iii willow thickets iii ril)arian
Blue list - special concern resident in summer woodlantl
D(aft P(ograin Fl~ For The County Of lmperial Gcneral Plaii 111-23
PAGE 16 Show Image
Ill. ~nvlfonmen(&I Anilyili
TAIILE 14
SFNSITIVE ANIMAL SPEC1I"~ IN I~1PL'I~IAL COUNTV
Species SIatu~ & Autliorily SI~ttts Ia Iniperial Cotiuty Ilitlutiti rEerereilce 1~citle
tricolored blackbird Federal category 2 Acci&lental occurrence Frc~l~water itiarsl~cs, cattails tules1 lml~rial Valley agricultural fields
Ag~Iaiui iricolor willows, gwiiilcfat; foragcs in
argrieultural arcils, lakc~lior~s, damp
lawns
nortl~ern cardinal State - sj}ccIal concern Accidental occurregice llcd~crow~, woudcdiiiar~ins, Lower Colorado River
Cardinalis canilnalis superba desert washes, rc~itIciitial areas
yellow warbler State - s[~cial concern Fairly common migrant in spring, Breeds iii riliaruli) woodliuds, esI). Lower Colorado River1 Imperial
Dendroica pelechia breivsierl uncommon localized resident in I) road 1c1tf trees National Wildlife Refuge
sumnier, fairly common to comi)ioii
migrant In (i'll. rare visilor in winter
Virgina's warbler State - special concern Accidental to occasional illigrant iii ~1cstlOIte tl~ickets or l)rLI~liy areas, Lower Colorado River, Imperial
Verig:gvora virginiac sprilig an(l fall ril)arian woI)(ll~ii1ds, tree rows National Wildlife Refiigc
yellow-breasted el)at State - special concern Uncomiiion to occasbual giligralit l~il)ariaii wo~idlaiids Lower Colorado River
Icieria virens
summer tanager State - special concern AecI~lciiIal occurrence l~csIileiitIal areils with liar~er trecs liiil)eriill Vallcy
Piranga r~~bra
mountain plover State - special concern CoIiln)()n to very eoiniiion locali£ed Newly di~ked or l)iIrilt a~rictilt~iral 11111)(:risl Valley agricultural ftelds
C)iaradrii~ monianus Federal - category 2 visitor in winter,' rcduetioii of Fields
grasslands is ii~sIn cause fur tlceline
western snowy plover State - special concern Rare to uneoumion breedisig rc~Ideiit ~lioreliiies, shallow water areas, Saltoii Sea shoreline (Unit 1),
C~iaradrius al~andrhii~ nlvosi*s Federal - category 2 in b.1)ring flooded agriel)ltiiral fields barnacle bars
Bloc list - special concern
long-billed curlew State - spccial concern Coininoii giugralit aud visitor igi l~resliwater 1)oiids, nitidllats, salt litiperial Valley agricultural fields
Ni*rncniiu americanits Federal - category 2 wintcr, uncoliiii)oIi and local vIsitor iiiarslies, irrigatcd agricultural ficid ~ ~ ?0~d~
in stinimer
laughing gull State - special conceni Non-l)rec(li(ig visitor iii sititiggier aud O1ici' witlcr1 slit)reliiics, gviiidflats; Salton Sea slioteline
~ airicilla fall fttriiierly itestetl iii the County, l)Iit
ho recejit l)reetlint)' reetirtlc(l
California gull State - special concern C~iiniiion tiligralit iii s~)rIiig and fill Ol~eii water, fre~liwater 1~iids, Salton Sea slioreliuc
Larus cahjornlcus lakcs, slioreligies mud fluts,
agricultu(al fields, gaibage duitips
~ `lii 111-25
PAGE 17 Show Image
Ill. ~nviron(fl An~lysia
~ 14
SL'NSITIYE AN1~1AL Sl~L'C1L'S IN 1~tl'l'l~lAI C()tJNTV * Jo l~
fj
Species Stattis & Authority Si~ttis Iii tiuperitil C()1I1~ty I 1.11)1(111 PI'LfLrL:ICL 1A)(~~!e
ull-billcd tern St~tc - special coneen~ Uncoininoit l)rccdiIi~ rc~idcI)t in ~ll()(elil~c5; Salton Seu is oi~ly ~ Sutton Sc~ sliordine ncur Red Ilill,
SI~rna nilotica spring an(l suinijier i1ilL~Iid-occL5rrilig nc~tii~g ColOli~C~ iii )~on'sDrat Niullet Island
wc~t~fii U.S.
California lca~L teril State - eudangered Potiulutions eurreutly suffering Slioreliiie~; ic~t~ uloug the e()u~t Sutton Sea sliorchue
Si~rna ant'.fIari~~i: browni Federal - eudangered serio~is dechues
elegant teni State - special concern Accideutal occurregice ~lLId~ut6, ~l~ur~liiic~ Sutton Sea sl~orclinc
Sierna eIegan~ Federal - category 2
black skimmer State - special concern Uncommon breeding resi(lcI~t igi Dikc~ iii~i~ll1i't~; Sultoi~ Sea is only Sutton Sea shoreline near Red 11111
RyncJiops niger spring aud sunitner iiilaiid-oceiirriiig iiestii~g colonies in ~ ~ I ~
western U.S. vz~
western yellow-billed cuckoo State - endangered Accidental occurrence l4iparit'ii corridoru, cottojiwood- Lower Colorado River
Coccyzi~ arncrican5~ occidenialis Federal - sensitive willow lial~itut
sliort~red owl Staic - special concern Rare to uncomision localiLed liugruilt Salt iiiars'l~cs~ OliCli gra~sliiiids, Imperial Valley agricultural fields
Asia fla,n~ne5~ 13lue list In winter agrieiiltii rat areas
long-eared owl State - specIal cogicergi l~urc lncalii.e&l rcsI~leiit aii~l vI~itiir Iii W~)ode~l areati igear (iliCil e(iiintry Aiiia-Uorrego Dewert State Park
Asia alus winter (Tainansk Grove campground)
b~irrowiiig owl State - special conceni Coiiiiiion resideut tl~rougl~oiit tl~e Grusslund~, i'grie~ilturat areas liliticrial Valley agricultural fields I
Ai~ienc ci~nici~laria 13lue list - special concern year; Western [3reeditig 13ir~l Surveys
sl~ow l()eali,ed decligies
elf owl State - endangered Accidental occurrence Native descit areas Lower Colorado River
Aticrai~i ci' C i~'~i iii cyi
bluek swift State - special coneeni Accidental oec~irrciiec Soariug over 1ioi~ds All areas of Ivuperial County
~pseIaides nigcr
gila wood1~cker State - endangered Rare rcsi~leiit tltroiigli&~~it the year Trees ~ k
~Iclaneq)es i4raJJyglalis
California leaf-giosed bat State - special coucern UncoilililoIl locallied breeLlilig Caves md illile sliiil~s d~iring the All areas of linticriul County; most
Afacrat,~s caIifarnici~ rederal - category 2 inigralit throughout the yelir; day; oceasiugially fi~iiiid iii biuliliugs cillilinon In mountains of eastern
(leeli[ilii1 ilue Iii lialul it hiss ~it iiI~~l~t flira1)es iii wa .~l~es Imperial County
pallid but State - special concern Upieniugunti iiiigraiit tlir()iiglii~iit tl~e Caves1 iiiiiies, cliff crevices, All areas of Imperial County
A'iIrozai*s paili~ii~ year; (lee liiiiiig (tue to liulutat loss hiuldiugs ; niosts iii I recs
1 -26 )ra ft ~tii~riiiit t& l'ii~ l~e Couiity tuperia encra plait
PAGE 18 Show Image
½~ United States Department of the Interior AMERKA~
49 BUR£AUOFLAi~D\~i~iNAGEM£NT -
E! Ccn~o Resource Area L~ REFLY ~ TO: (
1661 Sour 4th S~ee~
El Cencro, Caiifom~ 9224~56l
1791
March 18, 1993 (C-067.22)
Planning Department, Imperial County
Attn. Jurg Heuberger
939 Main Street
El Centro1 CA 92243-2856
Dear Mr. Heuberger:
Enclosed are comments compiled by my staff resource specialists, who reviewed
the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Imperial County General Plan
Update. Please consider the enclosed comments for preparation of the Final EIR.
We are available to meet with your planning staff to discuss our concerns with
you. Please contact Kerry Schwartz, of our office, to set up a time that would be
convenient for a meeting.
Thank you for your cooperation with this office.
Sin rely,
Ben K
Area Manager
enclosures
A: -~
~
N\AP 1 "~ ~93
~UIL~j~~G 1N~P~Cj~~;'\
PAGE 19 Show Image
COMMENTS ON THE I~ERIAL CO~LTY
DRAFT
ENViRO~IE~TAL IMPACT REPORT
Both the Draft General Plan Update (DGP) and the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) need to
discuss the significant changes (e.g., new laws, new species listed as Sensitive, threatened or
endangered) that have occurred since the 1973 General Plan. Specifically, the Draft General Plan
Update and the EIR assume there have been no changes since the previous General Plan in 1973. For
example. the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) was passed in 1976 and directed
46 BLM to retain most of these lands. No longer would public lands be available for disposal for
agricultural use. Only those lands found not to be in the national interest for retention through the
Bureau's1 planning process can be disposed off. Even then. FLPMA established a series of tests that a
parcel must pass before it can be disposed off. Under these requirements. very few can be disposed
of for agricultural use. Both the DGP and the EIR treat public lands on East and West Mesa as
though they are prime farm land.
Pare Comments
47F4 Para 3 The EIR should discuss the negative impacts to resources from the
proposed increase in county road right~~f-way widths.
S-7 Para 7 The EIR should list the types of impacts that are expected from hikers
and equestrian users. The magnitude of these impacts should be
projected under each alternative.
Para 9 The EIR should discuss the negative impacts to natural resources from
49 off-highway vehicle use. The magnitude of those impacts shouid be
L projected under each alternative.
Para 9 For consistency, the EIR and DGP should use the term "off-highway
50 vehicle" instead of "off-road vehicle". The State of California has
L adopted the former term to be used in the state.
S-9 Para 2 The discussion of mitigation measures should be expanded beyond the
costs of the proposed plan upon the County government. For
example. increased housing will cause more BLM managed lands to
be disturbed for new or expanded roads. New sand and gravel areas
will be required from public lands. Associated electrical and water
51 needs will require additional rightsof-ways across public lands. The
increase in the County's population will cause increased recreation
uses and demands upon public lands. Federal law enforcement
acrivities by BLNI Rangers to protect public lands would also increase.
The mitigation measures discussed would not have any effect upon the
impacts to BLM managed lands.
PAGE 20 Show Image
F13 Para7 The mitigation measures shoed inciude how the impacts of proposed
521 recharge facilities uton ~at-t:~i--~ed corned lizard habitat would be
L mitigated.
53F-14 Para2 The discussion is incorrect b~use most of the East Mesa
L consists of public lands which' are ~,ot available for agricultural use.
54[gure 2 The Superstition Mountains no~ part of the parachute testing area.
F5 Figure 2 San Felipe Townsite should retix)ved frorn the map because it is
I not addressed in the EIR or ~ DGP. In addition, does the San
~~1 Felipe Townsite still exist south of San Sebastion Marsh? If it is on
L public lands. the sensitive r~urces present would preclude the area
from being disposed of.
11-13 Para 2 The Housing Element should ~ addressed in the EIR. The DGP and
EIR have many sections that ~ii with housing. The impacts of the
Housing Element were analyzed in relation to the 1973 General Plan.
56 But the impacts of that elerne:r and of the DGP on the housing
element needs to be dis~ssed :n teems of curnuilative impacts and
changes that have occurred si:~:e tfiat element was adopted by the
Board of Supervisors.
57P11-8 Para 3 For consistencv in the EIR an~ DGP, ~Imperial Sand Dunes~' or
L "Algodones Sand Dunes sh~~d be used instead of "Sand Hills".
FII-16 Para 9 The EIR should dis~~s zile r~uct~on of agricultural designations that
581 are a result of the DCP and riat the result of legislation passed since
1 1973. As discussed above, ~st of the East.Mesa lands do not
L qualify as agricultural lands
111-17 Para 2 The EIR should dis~tiss ~e Ozuntv of Imperial's responsibility for
private lands where there is a ;he'~erboard ownership partern. The
BLM is responsible for ~ana~ng only the public lands in these areas.
59 It is incorrect to iriiDlv ulat tD' Caiifornia Desert Plan applies to the
private lands. Likewise it is ~ac~ate to state "BLM, therefore. is
the principal entity harged ~-.-n ~e protection of narural resources
within these areas. in regard to private lands.
FII-18 Para 3 The boundaries of ttie rnjiitar~~ ~es~vations in the countv are incorrect.
601 Please contact our ~rrice for co~v of a maD with the correct
boundaries.
FI-22 Para 1 For consistencv and ~c~~acv. :he -JR should ~e "Imperial Sand
611 Dunes" or Algodon~ S~d :`~~es instead of the "Glarnis Sand
Dunes". LAc'ewise. `Os~~r-~-; Sce-:c Q'~'erloo~' should ~e used
L instead of "Osborne Par's'.
PAGE 21 Show Image
111-54 Para 4 It is incorrect for the EIR or the DGP to claim a proposed 289,949
acre, or 452 square mile reduction in lands designated for agriculture
in the East Mesa. Both documents are using the fact that most of the
acreage is unfarmed public lands and the Federal Land Policy
Management Act of 1976 removed them from consideration as
agricultural lands.
FI-69 Para 5 The EIR needs to evaluate and discuss the impacts of noise on
63i sensitive wildlife receptors. Neither here nor elsewhere is there much
evaluation of noise impacts upon wildlife and the definition of
L sensitive receptors used in the DGP specifically includes wildlife.
~F-87 Para 3 Change ... associated with fan palms... to read associated with
L palm oasis habitat.'
65 FII-87~ P ara 4 The EIR and the DGP should also note that natural California fan
L palms are found in the Jacumba Mountains.
~~re 10 See attached map for change(s) in habitat boundaries. The text should
66 note who determined which areas are considered sensitive and which
L are not.
See attached map(s) for change(s) in sensitive plant and unusual plant
assemblages boundaries. The tbllowing name changes should be made
6;~re 11
to the unusual plant assemblages:
-Yuha Desert Crucifixion Thorn UPA
-Imperial Sand Dunes UPA
68F1-108 Habitats Somewhere in this section. reference should be made to figure ten t~r
L a definition of a sensitive habitat.
Figure 14 The Colorado River Herd Management Area Plan should be listed as a
resource area. The narrative to follow should incluJe the followin2:
The Wild Horse and Burro Act passed by Congress in 1971, provides
the basis for the management of wild horses and burros by the Bureau
69 of Land Management. It states that: ... the Secretary of the Interior
shall manage wild free-roaming horses and burros in a manner that is
designed to achieve and maintain a thriving natural ecological balance
on public lands.' The act also provides for the inventory, srudy, and
removal (if necessary) of wild horses and burros.
70 Lab Ic 13 Pholisma sonorae instead of Ammobroma sonorae.
Ill-I 13 Para 5 Is it accurate that the surface of the Salton Sea National Wildlife
71 Refuge's manageable acres of marsh habitat has shrunk from 35~000
acres in 1930 to 2,200 acres today due to flooding of the Salton Sea?
D
PAGE 22 Show Image
71L
If this is incorrect, the paragraph should be rewritten for clarirv and
accuracy.
FI-13~ Para2 Does CEQA treat mere consideration of the effects of an action as
721 mitigation or does it require specific, substantive actions that can be
I implemented? The EIR primarily calls for consideration of the effects
L of proposed actions.
73F1-138 Para 3 For internal consistency, the EIR and DGP should use "Mount Signal"
L instead of "Signal Mountain" throughout both documents.
74P11-140 Para 2 The EIR should use the precise term "geoglyphs" that has replaced the
L older term of "intaglios".
75F~l4o Para 5 The EIR should point out that the West Mesa East Mesa Fish Creek
Mountains, and Superstition Mountains areas also contain sensitive
L cultural resources.
F-143 Para l The EIR should point out that an Act of Congress dedicated the Juan
761 Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail. The trail has been formally
L recognized to be of national significance.
Para 4 The EIR and DGP need to consistently use the same element titles.
For example, "the Conservation and Open Space cement of the 1973
~~L1~'47
General Plan" is used here, but "the Conservation Element" of the
1973 General Plan is used on p.111-144, paragraphs 4 and 5.
78F1I-~49 Para 5 The EIR should use "emergency medical services" instead of
L "emergency services".
Para 3 The EIR should note that BLM provides parking pads, pit toilets and
trash dumpsters along Grays Well Road at the Buttercup Camping
Area, the Midway Camping Area, and adjacent to the Plank Road.
80F-170 Item g The EIR should discuss the impacts of sewage treatment in rural
L residential areas and in recreatiori/open space ares.
Fpii-193 Para 5 The California Highway Commission was responsible the construction
811 and malntenance of the Plank Road. It is inaccurate to imply that they
took over responsibility for the road after it was constructed.
82~I-194 Para 3 Is "El Picacho" really Picacho Peak? If yes the formation is located
L on public lands and is not in the Picacho State Recreation Area.
83L-196 Section J Non-point source pollution should be addressed in this section.
~~I-216 Para 1 The EIR needs to quantify the effects of grading upon the removal of
L natural habitat and vegetation.
4
PAGE 23 Show Image
F1-220 Para 3 The paragraph needs to be clarified. If in 1907 the Salton Sea was
Q~I 195 feet below mean sea level and in 1925 was 250 feet below mean
sea level, how come 226 below mean sea level in 1984 was the
highest level of the Salton Sea? Isn't -195 feet higher than -226 feet?
86Fx-l Para 4 The increase in agricultural area is not viable because most of the area
L for expansion consists of public lands and active military target areas.
FX-2 Figure 25 The EIR considers the size of military target areas as much smaller
871 than their actual size. It is also unrealisnc to expect parts of the
L existing target areas to be converted to agricultural lands.
IX-7 Para 5 A discussion of the impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard populations
and habitat losses from increasing the producing agncultural lands is
88 needed. One of four flat-tailed horned lizard habitats in California
would probably be eliminated by this proposal if it were not for being
in Federal ownership.
IX-8 Para 5 The proposed designation of public lands for agricultural use would be
in direct conflict with the Bureau's California Desert Conservation
89[
Area Plan because public lands are not available for agricultural
disposals.
90Fx-21 Para 3 The EIR needs to complete the sentence by stating what ~virtually9
I refers to.
IX-22 [tern C The EIR needs to discuss what the cumulative impacts would be if the
1973 General Plan would continue to be implemented. The analysis
should view the impacts from a 1993 perspective. Compliance with
91 the laws in place today (e.g., FLPMA), new sensitive and endangered
species designations and regulations1 and other changes since 1973
would produce different impacts than were found in 1973.
92F The scale on all of the maps included in this document makes it
L diffucult to read them.
5
PAGE 24 Show Image
-½ q ~½k
ii
0
*1
r )
1 /1 `1
`-I (
4 i\ ¼
e
____ - ~ Liufl I .*~
~ 11
22\;:Li~i
-2.1:. 2k.L/.jA.~ -
I - - -
~` ( x (
[71½]
() 6 121111103 III
L-[-J LItd
II1~j)eI'l(iI Cotuity ~ ~ ~CLY)'~~t IWp FigUre
().`ei~eQaj~P..LaL1~.~.. . ~ ~.............-- .* .---*-. -i--. le,~IJ3.1 I.UIb~tL~~
PAGE 25 Show Image
I I I `J~ia I~)i9~I9r)
_____ __ *5\)~~ ~ ~ ~ ~
-j9Jn[3!i... L __ __ ___________ _________
1 ½
Ii *1 .s~ -¼
~0 `¾r9eIUI~II..I~ )
i `~(
0 ~j~tJ,;j,g,Jj~~( ~
~¾½J I `
Ii; t
..L~.
(3~ ½ I'
0 I.
~ ;½..½½1
e
PAGE 26 Show Image
½ c9I!~~1
x
"em, F i
I I 1¼f I
_ I ~ ~IY ~
~~~ ~ 2;' ~
`I.
[
~A1, ;q~~o~e~I
\[ ,¼
j ¼ `I
\iIy*
I
½;
PAGE 27 Show Image
I .~ ½ ~l4
`¼ 1'
(g'~
4 ~ ~
F ~ j~ `~~N'~¼*J~ ~
_ ~PAec
S
4. 0 1 ~ WJ\o'>~
½ ~ ~IL~LI'~bJ ~ I I
I __-.. .. . .
xj `I..' - . .
~1 (` X
112 ~i~iIos
Q$'o[II~t
ei~eiaI I
PAGE 28 Show Image
F ¾
[L*~¼ye::~>A4 (X
/)II\
.1a~
F-
__ ji //~4\2] A~ ¾
__ I, 11
U _ I 5;;'
a
~ A:. 711
1i2 m1103 FL
Figure
(i'eI~oIc'~I PIa~
PAGE 29 Show Image
¼
1 ½
Q
(
Ii
..~32\.. J&3" `~ ~
½IIt~I L'2 is C
i\~~½½
+`. I
~1. 11
½ ¼!
w!~j Ir'
½ \\~.I
LL&4¼ II, -~ _
0
l~2 vi~iIo~ ½
II~~j)PiII(i.I (¼c~~ii~ty Figuro
G'ei~eiaI RIai~ ~ YYQ~5~~ ~ _______ t..::7)eL:Sefl.~Li~
PAGE 30 Show Image
-I
.y ¾'~"'
.l~ i " (b ~ ~ j (j d' ( () ~ C
0
*41A
½
i.
-I
IC ~
__ x ½
5' 1
( `I
&
~.~£C' J~U ~E ~ ~ ~ Lien 0 1 ~
___ I (A -
tCl X
1~2 Iw~iu~ FL
~ I H\~~(\ C ~ I eel U~e (.I~eCe~tj~
PAGE 31 Show Image
IF GFII[)
Li.. . I
ig i4\~ ,~e\\lkd!~Y..i
(3':'eI~e£aI2LaL~ ____
PAGE 32 Show Image
F
Q
8>4 r ½
\II __
~ 1:
``p',
:1 ~/~4(\ ~F~8
A)'
-~ ~
__J½..
**~~I () 1i2 inlios
1'7mguro
(i~ei~eiaI PIa[~ ~ ~ ~ ~ EIwi~ ________
PAGE 33 Show Image
.....~-.....~2;½7
½
½ "`~
0
I.
1'
~~~+4~reA
`~xJII\ ½1¾t½j~~<½'¾½W(.
½ $
A' I
__________ `I ( ~
~ -
A X
- ____ - --- - - -__-- -- -i-- --- -----~ -- - -- - ---- 1~2 vi~iIo~ FL
Ii11[~(-~I-i(iI (¼~t i~~ty Fi9ure
(;~eI~ef-aI Plain ~ P~~½- - P~eQ5o(i~ F\AI
A ea'i 113e (leai~e~ ( I
PAGE 34 Show Image
I
0.1. ji ~~cl~c)o3 ~$
.g. ~
j I ~ ~
¼ ) ½~~j~ALA ~
\ `. I'.
I
¾:
"I' . -
e~~I .. I
¼; ~ - ;..j.. ~
(~`ei~eiaI L~Iai~
~ .a~ IJ:e ~I.4IIeI
PAGE 35 Show Image
I ~`
~..................................................-..-..~..- .~.........:,.).~.I;½9\;;~.. I F:GFII[)
bC\ ½ ~ (\O
r ~ I
~ - I
F I1e~ JI
¾ I
IAA
. J &3aII 4
½ ;1 ~
½ ~ I'' ( i
Ask, -` . - ¾ *.. -.. -.. ..
()
6
O(QL'op~~ ~ 11103 L~I
(i"e~i~c~'aI PIai~
I e£.1 1i3e (`Ie.~seiiI 1/
PAGE 36 Show Image
- I EGEIlD
~i¼$~> 6;~j> ~;r { ½
-x I ~ ~1~
I __
-- I - - - -. -.. - -. -
1~2 f~iIo3 FL
iI1~p&~Ii(~~I (¼o~ii~ty eo\~~&~o ~½e( ~ p\~(' (~~\\H\AP) Figure
($i~~i~i~I jt~Iai~ s?~(;~ ___ I .i~ U~ (I~ieu ~ I L/
PAGE 37 Show Image
r C~iif~rn~a ~ ~ 3nd ~
"-I
Memo r~ndum
STA~~ CLEARIN~G~CUS~ L)a~e : Marcn' 8, 1993
- Lof~us ~ il-:M?-VAR
-r~.(~: DEPARTMENT OF TRAN~PORTA~ION
~
e~~: ~ for t~e P;pi~~~y of I~~~ria1 General ?1~n ~ 93011023
Cc~L~~tra~3 Di~~rict ii comznen~s on t~e DEER are a5 :ol~ows:
~rar-:ic/Oirculation - we are interested in orotect-specitic and
93K cu~uia~~ve traffic impact5 at existing and fu~~re State high~ay&.
~he caIc'~iation of those znpacts should be based on 2Q~year
traffic forecasts.
`OS(fleye ~t* S~~T'hce~' - ~e County of :rnoeriai can ~It~ga~e LOS
~:~pacts at State hjgh!day5 through Local/$ta~e ?artnershizs and
94~ deveiopm~nt ~~act fees (fair share).
95L S~-~8 (r~l~c.~ted) - Our agen~~ will consider ~ oro~osai to
relocate S~~9o~ through the Cite of Calexico u$in~ Cole road only
~r the city upgrades that roa~.
96L. ~ (vart~us e~~tbi..&) - Why is State .~oute 7 showr `as a curved
aii'~~~ent?
______ - The proposed easterly extension of the City of Brawlev
97; airport will probably necessitate an easterly reali'gnxnent 0
existing ~tat~ ~oute Ill.
98~ S~-78 - ?re1~inina~j studies are to be *~nder:a~en for the State
-route 78 by-pass of the City of Bra~1ey. The possible relocation
of Stare Route 7~ to north of that city should be discussed in the
Circulation ~lernent.
99L :~~st 3order Cro~in~ The various discussions of this facility
should irolude proposed State ?~ute 7.
Trafftc ~n~lv~t& - Tables 3 and 4, add State ~ou~e 7 (proposed).
Master ~ ~ (regional travel se~;ices) The County
of :mperial should add a statement in the Ceneral ?~an requiring
developers to dedicate right ot `4ay needed for State highway
101 irnprove~e:its when the suc'div~sion or dev~lcori~ent of property
adjacent to or straddling an existing or -`~u~~ S~ate highway ~5
proposeG.
PAGE 38 Show Image
Sa~e Clearinghouse
March 8, i~93
sage `rWO
Cal~rans W~II cor~~inue ~o coor~ina~e wish ~he Coun~i c~t Im~eriaI on
~he rouse ado:~~ion of a specific aiigninen~ for Stare Rouse 7 `which may
no~ exactly rna~ch ~ha~ sho~in in he sub~ec DE:R for ~he General ?lan
Upa'a~e. Our cor~~ac~ person ~S Mark ?arra, Project Manager, ?ro~ec~
Developmeri~ Br&nch `SB", ~f~i9) ~88-6952.
3ILL D:LLON, Chie:
Piarining S~ud~es Branch
PAGE 39 Show Image
DEIR, Imperial County General Plan
Page 2 of 2
III Pages 111-4, 111-9, 111-150, 111-169. Implementation of
the Plan will result in new residential, commercial and
industrial development, thus the generation of additional solid
waste. Landfill sites on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land
(six sites) and Quechan Indian land can be closed on short
notice; BLM has requested that the existing landfills in Imperial
County on BLM land be closed. Two large scale, privately-owned
landfill projects are proposed for Imperial County (Mesquite
103 Regional Landfill and Chocolate Mountain Regional Landfill.
Current landfill capacities are estimated to be sufficient
until the year 2005 (page 3-8). The life of the landfill
could be extended by development of waste diversion programs
(source reduction, recycling and composting) for linperial
County. Staff request waste diversion programs be addressed
in the final EIR.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the subject project.
If you have any questions regarding these comments, please call
Michael Kef fer of the Board's Waste Generation Analysis and
Environmental Review Branch at (916) 255-2328.
Sincerely,
Lorraine Van
Waste Generation Analysis & Environmental Review Branch
PAGE 40 Show Image
Pete Wilson, GQverncr
STAR OF CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT BOARD
Cal Cenrer Drive
Sacramento, California 95826
February 25, 1993 ~ ~
Mr. Tom Loftus
M4R011393
State Clearinghouse
1400 Tenth Street
Sacramento, CA 95814 dUIL~NQ~(;NCOUs\!:..
Mr. Jurg Hueberger
Imperial County Planning Department
940 West Main Street
El Centro, CA 92243-2875
Subject: SCH #93011023, DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (DEIR)
FOR IMPERIAL COUNTY GENERAL PLAN (PLAN)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project consist of the adoption of a General Plan
Update for development of the County of Imperial. The proposed
Plan Update will replace the existing General Plan, originally
prepared in 1973, to more effectively and comprehensively plan
for the long-term physical development of the County. The Plan
Update includes the following mandatory Elements: Land Use,
Housing, Circulation and Scenic Highways, Conservation and Open
Space, Seismic and Publ£c Safety, and noise.
California Integrated Waste Management Board (Board) staff has
reviewed the DEIR for the document cited above and offer the
following comments:
I - GENERAL COGENT
Board staff will only address those portions of the subject
document relating to solid waste generation and disposal,
pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act ~CEQA
Guidelines, Section 15205(c)].
Board staff request that the final El? include the following
information:
II - Pages 5-2, 5-3. County-operated landfills will be
designated as Special Purpose Facilities in the Plan. The intent
of this designation for such proposed or existing facilities is
to protect them from encroachment by development or incompatible
102 land uses.
Board staff support this approach and commend the County
planners for addressing the need to protect landfill sites
from encroaching development and incompatible land uses.
Printed on Recycted Paper
PAGE 41 Show Image
3TAT~ OF cALIFORNIA - CALI~QHNIA ~NVI~~NMbNlA~ ~~U$ ~ i~r~ ~ ~
CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD
COLORADO RIVER BASIN. REGION 7
7~720 FRED WARING DFL. sUITE 100 ~ **4
PA~OESERT.CA9226O
Pr~ *~i9)34~7491
F. )3414820
FEB 2 5 ~3
~AR 017993
County of Imperial Planning Department :`J~P~~;AL
940 West rain Street 5UlLD(NQ ~
~l Centro, CA 92243-2875 lNsP~CTIO~
Attn: Jurg Hueberger, Planning Director
D~IR for the Imperial County General Plan
We have reviewed the County of Imperial General Plan DEIR that we received from
you on January 25, 1993 and have the following comments:
This document is incomplete in that the potential impacts to ground water from
the implementation of the General Plan are not discussed or evaluated. Section
S-Il discussing the environmental impacts to water quality states that the
development of new residential, commercial, and industrial uses would result in
minimal impact to water quality. ~o estimates of the projected discharges from
ir'4 the above mentioned sources are provided to justify this claim. Estimates should
include any expected changes in the volume and quality of discharges in each
category examined (Agricultural, Urban, Industrial), the expected amount of
increase in pollutants associated with these discharges and whether there are any
new pollutants expected as a result of the implementation of this plan.
Impacts to water quality from storm water discharges are not discussed. This
discussion should include impacts to surface water and ground water from the
expected levels of nitrates, organics, metals, and TDS as well as any mitigation
measures necessary to ensure that these impacts will be brought to less than
significant levels. Until these sources and potential sources are fully examined
it is not possible to determine the impact to water quality. The following
comments concern the ability of the mitigation riieasures presented in section S-lI
105 to deal with impacts to water quality. litigation measures 1-3 will not
necessarily improve water quality conditions for the Imperial County drainage and
the Salton Sea. The implementation of conservation measures may increase the
salinity levels in the Salton Sea and agricultural drainage ways. The re-use of
treated waste water may increase nitrate and TDS levels in ground water and
surface water drainage. litigation measures should be included to deal with
landfills located near the ~ew River in order to minimize the impacts of
contaminant leaching.
f?n the discussion of water.quality on page 125 of section III, it is stated~that
106 j the fish in the Salton Sea average. 10 ppm of Selenium. Our data indicates the
Level~is closer to 3-4 ppm of Selenium..
PAGE 42 Show Image
~r. Jurg Heuberger, Planning Director
County of Imperial Planning Department C
Page 2
If yoti have any questions regarding this matter please contact Cary Anderson
(619) 776-8945.
cMCy ~DERS~N
~nviroruiierita1 Specialist II
CA/ci
File: ER lIMP 1.0
r
PAGE 43 Show Image
PETE WILsON. ~
-ATE OF CALI~041NIA-THE R£SOURC~ ACENCY
OLORADO RIVER BOARD OF CALIFORNIA
70 ~ ~~OPJT AVENUE. SUITE 100 MAR 1 8 1993
CA 9120~1035
;1E ~6 IMPERIAL COUNTY
.16) ~5 FAX B~LD1NG t~~CllO~
March 16, 1993
Imperial County planning Department
County Administrative Offices
940 West Main Street
El Centro, California 92243-2875
Attn.: Jurg Hueberger
~e: Response to the Draft Environmental Impact Report
for the County of Imperial General Plan
The Colorado River Board of California (Board)
appreciates being provided an opportunity to comment on the
subject draft report. The Board has the following general
comments on the Land Use, Public service/Safety, and Flood
control/Hydrology elements of the proposed General Plan as
well as the following specific comments.
The Board is responsible for protecting the State of
California's rights and interests in the water resources of
the Colorado River. With respect to the proposed changes in
the Land Use Element, the Board seeks to ensure that any
project which relies upon Colorado River -water acts in a
manner consistent with policies governing the river. Under
107 the collective "Law of the River" all users of Colorado River
water, including those with a present perfected right, must
have a water service contract with the Secretary of the
Interior (Secretary). In addition to water being diverted
irectly frorrt the river, water being drawn from the mainstream
by underground pumping is considered to be Colorado River
108 water under the 1964 Supreme Court Decree in Arizona v.
California. and thus requires a contract with the Secretary.
Historically, California's use of Colorado River water
has exceeded its basic annual apportionment of 4.4 (maf) per
year. As Arizona and nevada approach full utilization of
their annual apportionment5' it i5 unlikely that California
109 will be permitted continued use in excess of its basic
apportionment except when surplus or excess water is
available. When California is cut back, those entities
without a contract and those with a contract entitlement with
a priority outside of the State's basic apportionment will be
terminated.
PAGE 44 Show Image
PAGE 45 Show Image
Mr. Jurg Hueberger
March 16, 1993
Page 2
~on~agricultural water users along the river without
contractual water rights or with insufficient rights to meet
their present or future needs, may have an opportunity to
receive an exchange water supply under the Lower Colorado
Water Supply Project (Project). ~ow under construction, the
Project consists of a well field along the All-American Canal
110 in Imperial County where groundwater would be withdrawn and
discharged into the All-American Canal in exchange for the
rights to consumptively use an equivalent amount of water from
the Colorado River, up to a maximum of 10,000 acre-feet per
year. Exchange water from this Project is not available for
agricultural uses. The Board is of the opinion that the
pu~1ic Service/Safety Element may serve as a valuable vehicle
to alert those using Colorado River water without a contract
111 or whose contract entitlement is insufficient and may be
eligible to participate in the Project.
With respect to the groundwater and well water sections
of the Flood Control/.Hydrology Element1 the Board stresses
that the Supreme Court has set forth that #8Consumptive use
from the mainstream within a state shall include all
112 consumptive uses of water within the mainstream, including
water drawn from the mainstream by underground pumping..".
`I'his element of the plan should state that any such withdrawal
is considered to be pumping mainstream water and requires a
contract with the Secretary.
Specific comments and suggestions are as follows:
Sec. III, pg. 160 - The second paragraph under
"Winterhaven Water Districtu should be modified to
read "Winterhaven has obtained rights for the use
of Colorado River water based on a present
113 perfected right obtained under the 1979
supplemental Decree in Arizona V. California with a
priority date of 1856. The right was based on an
original irrigation use on 130 acres of land. The
water is presently used for both irrigation and
municipal supplies.
Sec. III, pg. 196 - The first sentence in the third
114 paragraph under "Water Quality" should be corrected
to reflect that the Colorado River provides water
to 18 million people and the fourth paragraph
should reflect that the dissolved salts cost
115 California water users an estimated $290 million in
annual damages.
PAGE 46 Show Image
Mr. Jurg Hueberger
March 16, 1993
Page 3
Sec. III, pg. 199 - The seventh sentence under
1161 "Salton Sea'5 should be corrected to reflect that
the total dissolved solids increases by
approximately 550 mg/L per year.
Sec. III, pg. 200 The total dissolved solids
117 value for 4/27/90 should be verified.
Sec. III, pg. 219 - The second sentence in the
first paragraph under "Surface Waters" should be
corrected to read Blythe, California. The final
118 sentence should read "Final diversions are made
from the All-American Canal for use in the Yuma,
Imperial and Coachella Valleys."
Sec. III, pg. 220 - With respect to the third
paragraph under `1Groundwater'1, it is the Board's
opinion that only a small portion, if any, of the
119 400,000 acre-feet of annual groundwater recharge
contributes to the groundwater reservoir underlying
Imperial Valley. lost of the recharge is to
shallow aquifers which is lost to the extensive
rainage system in the Valley. Reference to the
120 source of the 1.1 - 3 billion acre-feet should be
cited. The quality of water in the deep-water
reservoir is probably not suitable for all
121 beneficial uses as implied in the reference that
20~ of the water in storage is recoverable.
Sec. III, pg. 221 - The sixth sentence of the
second paragraph under "Well Water" should be
corrected to read "The lining of the Coachella
Canal has reduced water loss due to seepage, but
122 has not affected the wells in the area." An
additional sentence may be added to reflect the
current consideration of plans to line a portion of
the All-American Canal and a portion of the
remaining unlined - Coachella Canal.
Sec. III, pg. 222 - Under the "Flooding" heading,
the Board suggests adding the following paragraph -
"The colorado River Floodway Protection Act, Public
Law 99-450, provided for the establishment of a
123 federally-declared Floodway along the Colorado
River from Davis Dam to the Southerly International
Boundary between the United States and the Republic
of Mexico. It is to accoiunodate either a one-in-
one hundred year river flow consisting of
PAGE 47 Show Image
Mr. Jurg I{ueberger
March 16, 1993
Page 4
controlled releases and tributary inflow1 or a flow
of forty thousand cubic feet per second, whichever
is greater. The forty thousand cubic feet per
second flow corresponds to the long-standing target
maximum flood control release objective of Hoover
123 Dam which was established with the closure of the
dam in 1935. The one-in-one hundred year frequency
flow is the standard level of protection that has
been adopted in the administration of the rational
Flood Insurance Act."
The Board again wishes to thank the County of Imperial
for the opportunity to comment on this draft plan and should
the County have any questions or comments please contact me at
the above address and telephone number.
sincerely,
A'#~.~i~~erman
Executive Director
PAGE 48 Show Image
__ iIL~I~¶[~
HARRY ORFANOS ~ O~ AMERICA 1~ SO~~ 11Th ~
ECrOR OF PUBLIC WORKS ________ EL ~ CAUFOR~~~ 9224~23~3
~ ROAD COMMISSIONER
~ S~~V~OR Th~
~ ENGINEER
- FAX; (619) 352-1272
- WIDE ThAl~S~ I
ID WASP OPERATIONS
~
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
March 22, 1993
`-p "~Q ~. `~
Mr. Jurg Heuberger, Director
Imperial County Planning Department
Courthouse
El Centro, CA 92243
SUBJECT: Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Imperial
County General Plan Update
Dear Mr. Heuberger:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the above mentioned
document. The document contained a substantial amount of material.
~Although an effort was made to be as thorough as possible, this
1241 office may have overlooked something. Therefore, we reserve the
I right to add to our comments. Additionally, maps and other
~supporting documents were not included in the report.
The following is a compilation of the Public Works Department
staff's comments on the Environmental Impact Report prepared in
conjunction with the General Plan update.
1. On Page S-12, please provide additional information on
125h
specific locations subject to landslides, the existing
statement is too broad. In addition, please provide
source used to identify the landslide areas.
2. On Page S-13, it is stated that a drainage study should
be conducted by a "registered hydraulic engineer". To
126L
our knowledge, no such title exists. Please be advised
that the work should be performed by a registered civil
engineer experienced in performing drainage studies.
3. On Page 11-9, "Urban Areas", there should be a
distinction that the "Urban Areas" of Holtville,
Imperial, Westmorland, Heber, ~iland, Seeley and West
127 Shores/Salton City are not recognized by the Federal
government as "Federal Aid Urban" for road funding.
Additionally, the term "Urban Area'1 is not consistent
with the definition of "Urban" per Federal standards.
4. On Page 11-10, "CirculatIon and Scenic Highways
Element'1, there is no mention of public transit. It is
128w
felt that there should be a discussion of the available
services.
PAGE 49 Show Image
Jurg Heuberger Page 2, Continued March 22, 1993
On Page 111-14, "Special Purpose Facility", please be
advised that there are other operators of landfills in
1291 the County besides the County. It is suggested that
L these operators also be mentioned in the documents.
6. On Page 111-60, "Public Transportation", the information
130 provided in this section is not sufficient. It should be
expanded to include the same information and maps found
in the January 21, 1993 Willdan report. Information
regarding fares and private contract bus line operator
131 should be eliminated as they are too specific.
F7. On Page 111-65, Table 8, the minimum width cross
132L sections should be 40' for the roadbed and 60' for the
F On Page 111-150, "Solid Waste", the Department of Public
I Words views the alternate landfill site, in the
1331 Bard/Winterhaven area on Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
property, as a viable option only if BLM will transfer
L the property to the County.
F9 On Page 111-150, "Solid Waste", to our knowledge, there
are no County requirements for the proposed Mesquite or
134L the proposed Chocolate Mountain Landfills to accommodate
local solid waste.
10. On Page 111-150, "Solid Waste", this office has recently
met with the BLM and discussed the transfer of ownership
of the BLM property to the County. BLM responded
135 favorably and agreed to initiate the transfer of
ownership of BLM property, which had been leased to the
County for solid waste sites.
On Page 111-151, Figure 13, rather than lumping all
136F' landfills into one category, they should be identified
L separately on the map according to classification.
12. On Page 111-169, "Solid Waste", there is no
documentation to support the statement that some County
137 landfills, due to proximity to ~ew River or on BLM lands,
may not continue to be available to the County due to
environmental concerns.
surveyor\ improve\genlplan
PAGE 50 Show Image
Jurg Heuberger Page 3, Continued March 22, 1993
13. On Page 111-215, "Grading", it is stated that grading
should be minimized to reduce or avoid import or export
L
138 of soil. Please be advised these grading operations
may be necessary to protect properties from flooding.
14. On Page 111-220, "Surface Waters", it is suggested that
L
139 the Imperial Irrigation District (lID) be consulted due
to the recent policy decision of the lID to act as the
Flood Control Agency for the area within their boundary.
~ *15. On Page 111-225, "Surface Drainage and Erosion Control",
140 please refer to Comment ~2 of this correspondence, as it
is applicable here as well. Additionally, the last
141 statement that the study can be waived should not even be
included in the text.
16. Please be advised that Appendix C, "Traffic Report For
Imperial County", is not the most current. It is
L became painfully apparent upon reviewing the document that many
142 believed that Wuldan has prepared a document dated
January 21, 1993.
Ft
I references, figures and maps had not been updated or not even
1431 included in the report. It is suggested that the document is
carefully reviewed prior to finalizing to ensure the highest level
of accuracy.
Should you have any questions, please' do not hesitate to contact
this office. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment
on this project.
Sincerely yours,
S. HARRY ORFANOS
Director of Public Works
by:
Frank Fiorenza
Assistant County Engineer
sp
surveyor\ improve\genlplan
PAGE 51 Show Image
*- ½½¼R'~ MP£li~AL lift DAT DN D ~Tli CT
½ OPERATING HEAC)OUARTERS . P 0. BOX 937 * IMPERIAL. CALIFORNIA 922~1
ACM
March 22, 1993
Mr. Jurg Heuberger ~
Planning Director
Country of Imperial
~ cp~ o~
939 Main Street ~
El Centro, CA 92243-2856
Dear Mr. Heuberger:
Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Imperial
County General Plan
This is in response to your letter of January 20, 1993 requesting
written comments. Our understanding is that the comment period has
been extended to March 22, 1993 (60-days).
Perhaps, there should be a reference in the document regarding lID
(Imperial Irrigation District) authority. Our letter of September
144 21, 1992 suggested, "The lID is a responsible agency as defined
under 14 CCR Section 15381 and possesses jurisdiction by law under
14 CCR Section 15366 (a) (3) which entitles it to exercise
authority over resources which may be affected by the project."
On page 111-48 and following, the environmental impacts on
agriculture as a result of the proposed plan are discussed. In the
first paragraph on page 111-49, it is stated, "These 28,000 acres
represent about 5% of the 560,000 acres currently under production
in the County." Apparently, the reference is to harvested acreage
145 as stated in Table 5 on page 111-30. lID farmed acreages for the
years 1987 - 1991 are 455,718, 460,965, 463,92w, 468,828, and
468,451 respectively. Using lID farmed acreage will increase the
percentage reduction of Important Farmland to 6%, based on the 1991
acreage. Other references to harvested acres should also be
corrected.
PAGE 52 Show Image
Letter to Jurg Heuberger -2- March 22, 1993
Reference should be made in the document regarding the impacts to
lID of the Important Farmland acreage reduction on:
* Water Revenues
146 * Drainage and Water Conveyance Facilities
* Storm Runoff and Flood Control
These impacts will most likely result in increased costs and water
rates to urban users to assure a long-term balanced financial
support for the lID water conveyance and drainage infrastructure.
A second very important section of the plan is the circulation
element. Reference must be included in the mitigation measures
section on page 111-66 to the requirement for highway and road
plans to be coordinated with the District to assure efficient
147 compatibility with current and future water and power plans. You
recall a meeting that was held which included County staff, Brian
F. Mooney Associates, and lID water and power department staff on
this important issue.
FSpecific comments on sections of the report are enclosed as
148LAttachment "A". Thank you for the opportunity to provide these
comments. Please contact this office at 339-9477 if there is a
need for additional information. (
Sincerely,
CHARLES L. SHREVES
General Manager
ATTACXME~T
gene~aL2.pLn
RAM:djb
PAGE 53 Show Image
IMPERIAL COUNTY GENERAL PLAN
DRA~'T ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Attachment hAlt
Specific supplemental comments to the lID letter of March 22, 1993 are as
follows:
page/Para~ra~h Comment
5-7 Par. 2 Ft should be clarified that "...other toxic compounds;
organochiorine pesticides and herbicides; municipal waste
1491 discharges; erosion and siltation; and bacteria levels."
are found in surface drainage water, not all waterways
within the County.
S-il Par. 1 1 Discharge of total petroleum hydrocarbons (stormwater
150 discharge) will increase.
S-il Par. 4 1~1Fn the third line, replace the word "ditches" with the
`~`Lord "drains".
:11-31 Fig. 5 The Brock~Research Center should be included on the map
152L5 agricultural land.
:11-45 Par. 5 Fhe mitigation section for the agricultural element
should reference the requirement for communities/
1531 developers to fund pipeline/canal/drain modifications to
Lccommodate urban developments.
111-55 Par. 3 (Also on page 5-3, paragraph 3.) Mitigation for the loss
of Important Farmland is defined as locating and securing
replacement Important Farmland. Recognition should be
given to the fact that urban land water use is one to
three AF/AC, whereas water use on agricultural land in
154 the Imperial Valley averages five to six AF/AC.
significant cost could be associated with serving/
developing new lands and providing new water through
conservation or other measures to meet any increased
water demand. Furthermore, loss of revenue with this
change in water use per acre must be mitigated.
111-126 Par. 3 Reference is made to a 1980 Bureau of Land Management
estimate of a three-fold increase in electrical power
155 transmission facilities across the California desert by
the year 2000. A two-fold increase would be a more
reasonable estimate at this time.
111-153 Last Par. Fwith the repowering at the steam plant, the capacity will
l56Le260 megawatts rather than 180 megawatts.
I1~-154 Top Par. Add at the end of the paragraph, "In 1991, the lID
157 authorized the asset purchase of 104 megawatts from the
San Juan Generating Station (coal fired) in New Mexico".
PAGE 54 Show Image
Imperial County General Plan
craft EIR Comments Attachment -2- March 17, 1993
Pa~e/Para~ra~h Comment
111-154 Par. 1 Add to the end of the paragraph, "In 1992, the lID
initiated permitting for a 500-kV transmission line from
1581 the Palo Verde switchyard (Arizona) to the lID service
area extending north to the Southern California Edison
Devers Substation.
111-156 Par. 3 Revise the fourth line to read, "...that receive
1591 irrigation water from the lID for subsequent domestic and
drinking water treatment are:...''
:11-156 Par. 4 The first line should read, "lID also supplies irrigation
l6olwater to approximately 3,800 persons living in rural
areas
:11-156 Par. 5 eventh line) Delete New Briar and revise to read,
1611".. from these three main canals and from the lateral
L£anals...".
111-170 Par. 4 Fevise to read, "...reliance on the existing canal system
162L~aY have significant adverse health impacts".
111-196 Par. 1 The fresh waters generally have a total dissolved solids
163 concentration ranging from 600 ppm to 1,000 ppm.
111-197 Par. 2 (Sixth line) Should read, "The water flowing in these
1641 canals is used by people in rural locations for a variety
of domestic purposes...".
111-197 Par. 3 Canal water is normally filtered by a gravel filter in
the rural water user's water cistern. In some cases the
rural water is also disinfected by various means. The
165 seventh line should be revised to read, "...the EPA found
that some of the canals were contaminated with coliform
bacteria".
111-204 Second (Also page S-ll, second ~) Encouraging farmers to use
irrigation methods that conserve water is listed as a
mitigation measure in the water quality section.
166 Irrigation measures that conserve water, in most
instances, result in poorer quality drainage water, not
improved water quality.
111-219 Par. 6 Fhe capacity of outfall structures (tailwater structures)
167 oranges from one to six cfs depending on the hydraulic
conditions at the site.
111-220 Par. 2 Drainage from the Coachella Valley should also be
168 included as drainage to the Salton Sea.
PAGE 55 Show Image
Imperial County General Plan
Draft EIR Comments Attachment -3- March 17, 1993
P~ /Para~raph Comment
111-221 Par. 3 Surface elevations of the Salton Sea fluctuate each year,
depending on the rate of evaporation and precipitation,
1691 and runoff from Mexico, Imperial valley, Coachella
galley, and the surrounding watershed.
111-221 Par. 3 The last sentence should read, "The lining of the
Coachella Branch of the All American Canal has reduced
1701 water losses due to seepage, but has not affected the
wells in these areas
7-1 Par. 3 Reference needs to be added that entities will be
171 required to provide the necessary water treatment
facilities and sewer hookups to new developments.
9-7 Par. 2 FAlS0 S-14, paragraph 2) If additional agricultural land
1721 were to become new irrigated land, and increases the
total irrigated acreage and/or the total water demand,
additional water supplies would be required.
PAGE 56 Show Image
`~3 u35iP~ ~ DIYI~I~4
ETRoPO~JTAAi WATE V/STRICT OF SOUTHEfiW ~ZI[URNiA
`.1 ~ f~jj;J~1~p
March 22, 1993
Mr9 Jurg ~euberg r
Planning Directo
Planning/Buildin Department
County of Imperi I
939 Main Street
El Centro, Calif nia 92243
Dear ~. Heuberg
Corn ents on the County of Imperial
General P1 n's Draft Environmental Impact Report
Metropolitan has reviewed the Draft Environmental
Impact Report fo the County of Imperial General Plan. The
enclosed comment represent Metropolitan's response as a
potentially affe ed public agency.
We appr jate the opportunity to provide input to
your planning pr ess. If we can be of further assistance,
please contact m at (213) 217-6272.
Very truly yours,
4!A&~1¼ M~tv~
Kathleen M. Kunysz
Manager, Environmental Affairs
FZK:bvf
Enclosures
II .5, r~;~i5ii~£j ,..i(1i ii. `):: A..ii~t~'.'.:, ,5~~jJi'ijj i,.. - ~sA'~pt'ni .)13 ~:;f: r,1~flfl
PAGE 57 Show Image
Enalosure 1
Metropol tan's Comments on the County of Imperial
1. The fi st paragraph, page 111-13, states that the
Recreational/Op n Space category of land use includes recharge
of the groundwa er basin but does not specifically mention the
recovery of sai water. As a way of more efficiently
utilizing Color ~ River resources, the U.S. Bureau of
173 Reclamation (Re lamation) is studying the feasibility of
recharging surp us flows of the Colorado River in the East
Mesa through th old Coachella Canal. Recharged water could
be~ recovered by wells and discharged into the Coachella Canal
in years of nee . The EIR should recognize the potential
implementation f this project.
2. The to rth paragraph, page 111-24, states that the
Tamarack Canyon Specific Plan Area includes constructing
lakes. From th description provided in the draft EIR, it
is unclear what the source of the water would be for filling
174 the lakes. It hould be noted in the EI~ that Imperial
Irrigation Dist ict's (lID) Colorado River water delivery
contract with t e Secretary of the Interior limits use as
reasonably re~u'red for potable and irrigation purposes.
3. Under `Water Resources11 third paragraph, page 111-40,
replace "Palo V rde Weir" with "Palo Verde Diversion Dam".
Replace "2.6 mi lion acre-feet" with "2.9 million acre-feet"
175 to more accurat ly reflect liD's historical average net
diversion from e Colorado River for 1986-1991. This change
should be made roughout the EIR such as on pages 111-156 and
111-219.
4. Since e Salton Sea is in a closed basin, the
salinity load well continue to rise. Even if the ~ality
of drainage wat r improves there will still be a substantial
amount of salt cading to the Sea: Selenium carried by the
drainage water nters the Salton $ea where it precipitates
to the sediment . It is from these sediments that selenium
176 enters the food ham leading to bioaccummulation in the
higher trophic evels. It should be noted in the EIR,
page 111-47, th d paragraph, that while the total dissolved
solids (TDS) co centration of the Salton Sea has continued to
increase, the S lenium concentration in the water column has
remained steady t 1 part per billion (ppb).
5. From Fi ures 12 and 13, pages 111-109, 111-ill, it is
unclear whether he areas designated as "Mountains1' also serve
177 as fiat-tailed orned lizard habitat. The second par~gr~ph on
page 111-107 in icates they do exist in the sand dunes.
Please clarify.
PAGE 58 Show Image
1HR ~ `~3 O'3 5~H1 R~'-;CURC~S LI VI S I `( ~
-2-
6. The th~rd paragraph, page 111-113, indicates
agricultural re ated canals of Imperial Valley have highly
specialized corn unities that will require protection. It
should be noted in the EIR that the All American Canal from
Pilot Knob to D op 3 and the remaining unlined portions of
the Coachella C nal within Imperial County are proposed to
be lined with f nding provided by a California Contractor
holding a Color do River water delivery contract with the
178 Secretary of th Interior. Reclamation is currently preparing
the environment 1 documentation for these two projects which
outline appropriate mitigation measures to maintain, replace,
an~d/or compensa e for existing wildlife resources that may be
impac£ed by the two lining projects. Reclamation estimates
that the All Am rican Canal Lining Project Final Environmental
Impact Statemen /Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) will
be released to he public in July 1993 and the Coachella Canal
Lining Project raft EIS/EIR will be released in April 1993.
Iso, the curre t surface elevation of the Salton Sea should
179 be corrected fr m 277 feet, as cited in paragraph 5 on the
same page, to 2 7 feet.
7. Under ff-highway vehicles, the acronym tICPS11 is
used, page 111-29, but the meaning is not clear and the
definition is d'f ficult to locate. Since the document uses
180 many acronyms, he reader1s understanding would be facilitated
by including a ist of acronyms with their definitions in an
appendix.
3. ~itiga ion measures outlining revegetation of graded
sites and distu bed lands must take into account the climate
of the Imperial Valley. It may be unreasonable to re vegetate
an area that wo ld require long-term irrigation. The EIR
should be speci ic, pages 111-132 and 111-133, in noting
that only nativ plants should be used such that minimal
intervention an maintenance would be required. Considering
181 Imperial County averages less than three inches of rain per
year, it is dif icult to imagine a "rainy season" during which
planting should occur. Many lands in Imperial County do not
have water avai able for such revegetation efforts, and some
groundwater res urces may be of inadequate quality. Any
revegetation re irement ordered by Imperial County must
consider the av ilability of water and the sustainability
of the vegetati n in the arid climate.
F 9. Revise "Palo Verde County Irrigation District" to
1821 "Palo Verde Cou ty Water District" in the second sentence of
Lhe first parag aph 9n page 111-155.
PAGE 59 Show Image
-3-
10. Revise he discussion following the first sentence
of the second pa agraph on page iii-155 to state: "In
accordance with he Colorado River compact of 1922, the Upper
and Lower Basin. tates are each apportioned the exclusive
benef icial consU ptive use of 7.5 million acre-feet (MAF) of
Colorado River S stem water each year, in perpetuity. In
addition, an opt on is granted to the Lower Basin States for
183 the u~e of an ad itional 1.0 ~IAF of such waters each year for
beneficial consu ptive use. The 1929 California Limitation
Act limits Calif mia's annual consumptive use to 4.4 MAF of
the Lower Basin1 7.5 MAF per year basic apportionment, plus
n~ot more than on -half of any excesS or surplus water
unapportioned by the Colorado River Compact." This more
accurately refle ts the language contained in the documents
cited.
11. Revise he third paragraph on page 111-155 to state:
18By treaty signe on February 3, 1944, Mexico is entitled to
1.5 MAF of Cob do River water each year. The Colorado River
Compact anticipa ed the recognition of Mexico's rights to
Colorado River ter by the United States and specified that
such water shall be first supplied from waters unapportioned
by the Colorado iver Compact. If unapportioned amounts
184 should be insuf icient, any shortfall shall be borne
et~'1allY by the per and Lower Basin States. In years of
extraordinary d ught or other disaster causing extreme low
flow conditions, Mexico's entitlement would be reduced in the
same proportion as consumptive uses in the United States~"
This more accura'tely reflects the language contained in the
documents cited.
12. In the \\f irst sentence of the fourth paragraph,
page 111-155, revise "Element11 to "plant'1 . In the second
sentence, inser "Colorado River" following "District and
other" as well 5 before "water annually" to clarify for the
185 reader that Col rado River water was the subject of the
discussion. Re ise the order of discussion such that the
1931 Seven Pert Agreement is mentioned before the 1964 U.S
Supreme Court d cree. Also, the last line refers to Figure 19
which is claime to show the apportionment priorities outlined
in the Californ a Seven Party Agreement. However, Figure 19
186 deals with othe subject matter. Enclosure 2 is a copy of the
1931 Seven Part Agreement showing the priorities
Agreement" on p ge 111-156, insert "execution of the".
187Er 13. Prior o the phrase `Icalifornia seven Party
188 It is unclear f om the EIR what otter contract is being
eferenced in t e first sentence of the third paragraph.
On pag 111-156 in paragraph 5, please state the
1891 specific tasks hich lID is to undertake to satisfy the
PAGE 60 Show Image
biH~ ~ `~J ~~54P1i ~E£Cu~~~5 L'IVItIQ>{
-4-
December 22, 19 2 Environmental Protection Agency
189 LAdministrative rder and the schedule for compliance.
15. Delete the second and third sentences of the fourth
paragraph on pa e 111-159. Metropolitan disagrees with the
statements made that lID can transfer Colorado River water
under state law. Article 1 of the United States Supreme Court
decision in An ona V. California dated June 3, 1963 states
that "It is the (Boulder Canyon Project) Act and the contracts
made by the Sec etary of the Interior under § 5, not the 1~w
of prior approp iation, that controls the apportionment of
~ter among the States; and the Secretary, in choosing between
the users withi each State and in settling the terms of his
contracts, is n t required by §§ 14 and 18 of the Act to
follow state la ." Article 17 of lID's December 1, 1932
water delivery ontract incorporates the provisions of the
190 California $eve Party Agreement which apportions Colorado
River water und r the third priority "... to the Imperial
Irrigation Dist ict and other lands served by the All American
Canal in Imperi 1 and Coachella valleys..." Article 111(C)
of the subseque t United States Supreme Court decree in
Arizona v~ C dated March 9, 1964 enjoined lID,
among other Ccl rado River water users, "From diverting or
purporting to a thorize the diversion of water from the
mainstream the iversion of which has not been authorized
by the United S ates for use in the respective states; and
provided furthe that no party named in this Article and no
other user of w ter in said states shall divert or purport
to authorize th diversion of water from the mainstream the
diversion of wh ch has not been authorized by the United
States for its articular use.'1
It; is parent from the above documents that use of
Colorado River ater is apportioned under federal law and lID
cannot unilater lly transfer what it may define as conserved
or surplus wate . It is Metropolitan's position that in
accordance with he Colorado River Compact, the Boulder Canyon
Project Act, th California Seven Party Agreement, the United
States Supreme ourt decision in Arizona v. California dated
June 3, 1963 an subsequent decrees, water delivery contracts
with the Secret ry of the Interior, and Title II of Public Law
191 1OO~675, Cobra 0 River water that is not needed by lID for
beneficial cons ptive use within its service area, is
available to th next priority user specified in the Seven
Party Agreement nless all of the parties to the Seven ?arty
Agreement agree therwise. Such agreements have been
reached. They i dude the:
December 22, 1988 "Agreement for the Tinpiementation
of a W er Conservation Program and Use of Conserved
Water" etween lID and Metropolitan;
PAGE 61 Show Image
-5
* Decemb r 19, 19?9 "Approval Agreement" among lID,
Metrop litan, Palo Verde Irrigation District (PVID),
and Co chella valley Water District (CVWD); and
* May 29, 1992 Agreement for the Implementation of
a Test Land Fallowing Program and Use of Saved
Water ong PVID, Metropolitan, lID, CVWD, and the
191 United States.
Under these agr ements1 lID, ?VID, and CVWD have agreed to not
divert certain ounts of conserved and saved water, a portion
of the 3.85 ~il ion acre~feet to which they were otherwise
entitled under a Seven Party Agreement. These agreements
should be menti ned in the EIR following the first sentence on
page 111-156.
16. Revise he last sentence in the fifth paragraph on
page 111-159 to read: "Currently, the Palo Verde Irrigation
District holds entitlement to use of Colorado River water
aB reasonably r quired for potable and irrigation purposes
192 for beneficial se on 104,500 acres of valley lands and
16,000 acres of esa lands." This language more accurately
reflects the la uage contained in PVID3s Colorado river water
delivery contra with the Secretary of the Interior. Also,
he relationshi of the 8,400 acres and 7,200 acres is not
193 clear, clarific tion would be helpful.
17. Revise he second paragraph on page 111-160 to read
"The city of Wi erhaven holds a present perfected right to
divert 780 acre feet per year fromthe Colorado River." rote
that the presen perfected right was granted by the United
194 States Supreme urt supplemental decree in Arizona v.
California date January 9, 1979 and was not granted by the
U.S. Bureau of eclamation in the 1800's. The Reclamation
Service, later be given Bureau status, was not created
until 1902.
F 18. Revise the first sentence of the fifth paragraph on
1951 page 111-160 to orrect Bard Irrigation District's average
annual net dive sions to the Bard valley. In the last
l96Esentence of the same paragraph, delete "boundary."
19. In the second paragraph on page 111-161 insert
"on December 22, 1988, and both parties entered a subsequent
Approval Agreem t along with CVWD and the PVID" following
197 "Metropolitan W er District was reached". Also, in the same
paragraph, repla e "106,100" with "106,110" to ac~urate1y
state the amoun of water projected to be conserved under the
agree~ents In ddition, revise "233 million" to "$222
million (1988 d Ilars)." Finally, to convey to the reader
PAGE 62 Show Image
`~3 ~35~PI1 ~EbOUPCE~ DI'~~I~I('~ ~. b½ i
-6-
that certain ii tations do exist on the availability of
1971 conserved water 0 Metropolitan, insert "and subject to
conditions contained in the Approval Agreement" following
Lin exchange~~
F 20 In para raph 1 on page 111-196, replace 1,000 parts
1981 per million wit 700-850 parts per million to accurately
I reflect recent T S concentrations of All American Canal
Later.
21. The fir t sentence of the third paragraph on page
I~II-l96 states t at the Colorado River provides municipal
and industrial ter to nearly 14 million people and irrigates
199 approximately 70 1000 acres of farmland. Metropolitan alone
imports Colorad River water to a service area inhabited by
15 million resi nts. The number of acres of farmland served
is too low unles the discussion is intended to be limited to
California only. Please clarify.
22. On pag 111-196 in the third paragraph1 revise
"$100 million'8 "$300 million" to reflect the information
2001 contained in th "Report on the 1990 Review, Water Quality
standards for S unity, Colorado River System11 prepared by
the Colorado Ri r Basin,Salinity Control Forum.
23. Revise "1,000 mg/L at Hoover Dam by 2010" to
2011 "820 mg/L at Ho er Dam by 2010" to reflect information
contained in th above mentioned 1990 Review.
F 24. In the first paragraph on page 111-197, replace
2021 "East and West ighime Canals" with "East Highlme and
Lestside Main C als'9.
25. The fi St paragraph on page 111-198 states that
water from eith r the ~ew or Alamo River is unsuitable for
irrigation. As a matter of record, James D. Rhoades of the
U.S. Salinity L oratory in Riverside, California, conducted
a field experim nt in the Imperial Valley irrigating crops
with Alamo Rive water. The study results indicated that
203 under proper ir igation management, irrigating with Alamo
River water can rovide crops "superior in quality" (Rhoades,
James D., et. a ., Reuse of Drainage Water for Irrigation:
Results or Impe ial Valley Study, university of California
Division of Agr culture and Natural Resources, October 1988).
As such, delete the phrase "or for irrigation" from the first
sentence.
F 26. The tw paragraphs on page 111-198 appear to confuse
2041 the concept of otal loading with concentrations in the
New and Alamo R vers. For example, while salt concentration
PAGE 63 Show Image
& - -
7
of the New Rive at the Salton Sea is reduced from the
concentration me lured at the international boundary,
total salt load S increased. Each irrigation drain that
discharges into he ~ew River within lID may have a lower
204 salt concentrati n, which would act to dilute the New River
water. However, each irrigation drain adds additional salt
(total mass) to he New River increasing the total salt
loading of the w River to the Salton Sea. Please revise
language in the IR to clarify this point to the reader.
F. 27. On pag 111-203 in the fourth paragraph, the EIR
should indicate he impact of development of urban uses on
2051 land previously tilized for farming on the concentration of
Lelenium in agri ultural drainage water downstream of the
urban use develo ment.
28. On pag 111-204, under mitigation measures listed
to be implement in order to improve the water quality of
Imperial county' bodies of surface water, a requirement
should be consi red for new building construction and
renovations to dude the installation of low water use
~06 shower heads, f cets, toilets and other water using
fixtures. The equirements should be in accordance with
Section 17921.3 of the Health and Safety Code of the State
of California f r toilets and Section 1604(g) of the
California Code ~f Regulations, Title 20, Chapter 2,
subchapter 4, A% icle 4 for other water fixtures.
29. In the fourth paragraph on page 111-219, replace
"Palo Verde Wei~" with "Palo Verde Diversion Dam". Also,
207 the par a4raph S hou Id be revised to clearly indicate that
lID, CVWD, and lard Irrigation District divert water from
the Colorado River at Imperial Dam through the All American
Canal.
30. On pag 111-221 in the third paragraph, the last
sentence should e revised to indicate that lining the first
49 miles of the Coachella Canal from its turnout from the
208 All American Ca al was completed in 1980 and that the earthen
All American Ca al is proposed to be lined from Pilot Knob to
Drop 3.
31. The se ond item on page V-5 states that "Adequate
water supply to the region exists via the Colorado River
209 2nd Metropolita Water District distribution system." This
statement shoul be deleted because Metropolitan does not
serve any porti n of Imperial County.
p32. The se ond paragraph on page V-6 indicates that among
210t other Pollutant , selenium can be found in urban runoff which
PAGE 64 Show Image
Z~L~ `~3 ~L~:b~H KLb~JH~L~ L)jWI~IYiA
8-
can lead to pote tial significant cumulative impacts with
respect to surfa e and groundwater quality. The February 1993
Draft Environmen al Impact Report ror Zast Lowline and
210Trifolium Interc ptors, and Completion Projects released by
lID indicates th t all of the selenium or the Imperial Valley
is imported by C lorado River water. Please clarify the
source and quant ty of the selenium found in urban runoff.
33; In the iscussion of the Increased Agriculture
Alternative in C apter IX, an analysis of water availability
should be includ d. considering the over-allocation of
211 Colorado River w ter and Section 206 of Public Law 100-675
(included herein as Enclosure 3) it would appear that
available cobra 0 River water supplies are insufficient to
support signific nt expanded agriculture on the East Mesa.
JI£/FZK
J15~ube
(
PAGE 65 Show Image
Appendix 1003
WATER: CALIFORNIA
SEV PARTY WATER AGRE£MENT,
AUGUST 18, 1931
AGREEMENT
~~U~TING TU~ Dtv~BIo~ OT WATER RZSOURCZS 0? TRI STATL or
~** `I- ~ T APPoRTxo~ CAUTORNIA' S S~ARZ OW TH~
trap ~ * CT ~I COLO * DO Rrv~ AMONG ~ VARIOU8 APPLICANTS AND
WA~R Us~~ T~mRzTIIoM IN THI S'rATZ, Co~B~TING TO Such
* * APPO~!owM~ TB, AND RZQUZSTING SIMILAR Appo~'rI0N~ZNTS ~.*
~ SZCRZTA Or TRI I~TEaroR or THI U~tT~D STATX8
Thu a~eeme , made the 18th day of August i~ai, by and be
fo~ia * *: C~e&Ce~e?lla51oVallVeer ~ Xmperi~ Irrigation District.
District, Metropolitazi Water Di~
~ trict of $outherii California, City of Los Angeles, City of San Diego,
* j~Couu~of S nDie~.
witnesseth:
~ereas the S cretary of ~e Interior did, on November 5, 1933,
request of the Di sion of Water Re~urces of C~1ifornia ~ recotamen
d&tion of the p per apportionments of the water of and from t~e
* Colorado River 0 which California may be entitled tinder t~e pros
* Tision: of the C orado River compact, the Boulder Canyon project.
ICt, GILd other a plic~ble Iegis1~tion and regulations to the end that
the ~~me c6uld C carried into each and &11 of the contracts between
`4:. the United Stat s &nd applicants for wat& contracts in C~iforni~
&i&uiiiformcla se;and
~ere~ the arties hereto have fully cofl8idered their r~pective
llo~s~ tights and requi ments in cooperatioti with the other water users
r and * ~d applicants d the Division of Water Resources aforesaid;
sow, therefor ,the parti~ hereto do expressly agree to the appor
tion~ents and p orities of ~vater of ~d from the Colorado River for
`13e i~ California as hereinafter fully set out and respectfully request
the Division of ater Resources to, in &1l respects, recogrii~e said
Uowa: * ~PPortionmenti nd priorities in all matters relating to State author
ty ~ to recom e~d t~e provision o~ Article I hereof to the Secre
`~ of the Inte or of the Uru ted S~ate~ £or iri£ertion in any and all
A479
PAGE 66 Show Image
`93 ~3:57~I ~ES~J~CE~ DIYIbI~4 ~
A480 A~?~N~LX 1003
contracti for water ux&de by hi~n ~ to ~e ~&m~ of the ~O~dOF :
C~yon project act, ai~d agree that in emery wat8r contract whjc~
~ny party may hereaf tcr enter into with the United States, pros.
lions in accordance with Article I shall be jz~ciuded therein if agreeabj~ ti
to the United States.
A~~cLz I
The waters of the Colorado River &v~ilable for USC within the St~~
of California imder the Colorado River compact and the Bould~
Canyon project act shall be apportioned to th8 respective ii~tere£tg
below ~~nied and in ~moun~ ~d with priorities therein named ~d
set forth, as foUows:
Szc*rio~ 1. A first priority to Palo Verde irrigation District for
beneficial use exclusively upoxi lands in &~id district as it flOW existi
and upon lands.between &aid district and the Colorado River, &ggro~
*gati~ (within and without said district) a grois area of 104,500 acre',
such waters as may be required by s&id lands.
4' Sec. 2. A second priority to Yuma project of the United St&te.
Bureau of Recl~tion for beneficial use upon not exceeding & gross
area of 25,000 acres of land locate& m 5aid project in C&iiforni~, such ~
waters as may be required by said 1ar~ds. IT.
33c. 3. A third priority (a) to Imperial irrj~tion Distriot and~
other lands tinder or that will be served froin the All~Amert.can Canil
in Imperial aud Coachella Valleys, and (b) to ?&1o Verde Irrig~tiou
D~trict for use exclusi~e1.7 on 16,000 acres in that area ~ow~ as the
"Low& Palo Verde Mesa," adjacent to Palo Verde irrigation District
for beneficial conaumptive use, 3,850,000 acre-feet of water per
4 less the beneficial co~umptive use under the priorities designated i~
sections 1 and 2 above. The rights designated (a) and ~) in this
s~ctiou are equal in priority. The total beneficial coniumptiYe use
tinder priorities stated in sections i, 2, and 3 of this article shall not
~ceed 3,850,000 acre-feet of water per annum.
S£c. 4. A fourth priority to the Metropoht&~ Water District of
Southern California and/or the City of Los Angeles, for ~
consu['~ptive use, by themselves and/or others~ on the coastal p~Lin
of Southern California, 5~0,000 acre-feet of water per annum.
Sio. 5. A Iifth priority (a) to the Metropolitan W&t~ District of
Southern California and/or the City of Los ~eles, for beneflci~~
co~umptive use, by themselves and/or others, on the coastal plai~~
of southern California, 550,000 se-feet of water per atm~ and ~)
to the City of San Diego and/or County of San Diego, for
co~umptive ~e, 112,000 acre*feet of water per annu~ The rights
designated (a) and (b) in this section are equal in priority.
S£c. 6. A 3L~t}l priority (a) to Imperial Irri~tion District ~d
other lands uiider or Lhat will be served from the ~ ~
.44
PAGE 67 Show Image
wATER: CAL1~O~~IA~t ~3 L SE ~ PARTY AG~ZZME~T A48i
~ Imperil ~`id Coacheila idleys9 ~d (b) to Palo Verde
o~ District for u~e exclusive on 16,000 acres in that area
the 44Lower P~~o Verde mesa," adjacent to Palo Verde
~jg~Lio~ D~tn.ct, for benefici~ Co timptive use, 300,000 acre-feet
of wSL~ per &rmum. The nghti de ignated (a) and (b) Ir' this 5~-
~ iLte equal ~ priority.
Sec. 7. A seventh priority of all r.mainmg water available for
~ within California9 for ~gricultur use in the Colorado River Basin
~ C~ijfornia, ~ said basin II desi ated OIL map No.23000 of the
Depar~ent of the Interior, Bureau f Recl~ation.
S3c. 8. So far as the rights of the ~ilottees named above are coa
cer31ed9 the \.Letropolitan Water istrict of $outhern California
~ divert into its aqueduct any water in Boulder Canyon
ed/or the City of Loe Angeles shall ave the exclusive right to with-
R~~ervoir accumulated to the uidivi al credit of said district andior
5~d city (sot ~ex'ceedir~g at any one tirne 4,750,000 acre-feet in the
iggregate) by reason of reduced di ersions by said district and/or
said city; provided9 that accumulati nishall be subject to such cor'-
ditions ~ to accumulation, retention release, and withdrawal as the
3.cret&r7 of the Intenor may frora t e to time prescribe in his dis-
~e~iofl, snd his determination thereo s~L&ll be sal; provided further,
I';;::.
t~~t the United States of America r erves jhe right to make similar
~rnmgemeQts with users ir' other State without distinction in
priority, and to deter~ILine the cor lative relations between said
district and/or said city and such `is rs resulting -therefrom.
~. In addition, so far as th rights of the allottees named
are co~erned, the City of S Diego andlor County of San
Diego shail have the ~clusive right withdraw and divert into an
~4ueduct any w~tcr in Boulder Ca yon Reservoir accumulated to
the individual credit of said city an lor said couuty (uot exceeding ..
~ny one time 250,000 acre-feet the aggregate) by reason of
reduced div,~ions by said city and or said co~ty; provided, that
¼\~i£
acc~iznul~tion~ shall bo subject to S C~ conditions as to accumula-
tions, retention, rei~ase, and witlid a'~al as the Secretary of the
Interior m~y frorn time to time pr cribe in ilis discretion, and his
determix~ation thereof shall be final; p vided further, that the Unitod I ."
States of Arn~rica reserves the righ to make sinijiar arrangements `I
with hers in other States without distinction in piiority9 and to
ci~terminc tlie correlative relations etween said city and/or said
co~n~y &nd such users resulting ther from.
Sec. 10. Tn no event shall the am unts allotted in this agreement
(0 (ile ~fetropclitan Water District of Southern California and/or
rhe CiLy ~f Los Ai~geles be increas on ac~unt of inclusion ~)t a
~upp~ for both said district and sai city, ~nd either or both may
PAGE 68 Show Image
P93 ~3:59PN P~~QU'RCES DIVISION P.14/19
A482 APP~~D~ 1003
tlu said apportionments ~ may be agreed by Lfld bc~wei~ ~
district and said city. 14
S~. 11. ~ no event shall th8 amounts allotted in t~Lis agree~~~ ~
to the City of San Diego and/or to the County of San Diego ~
incr~as~d on account of inclusion of a supply for both said City ~
aaid county, and either or both may use s~d apportio~5~~ a'
may be Lgreed by and between said city and said county.
Sec. 12 T~ priorities hereinbefore s~t forth ~ be in ~ ~
affectcd by the relative dates of w&tcr contracts executed by the. ~
Secretly of the In~crior with the various parties.
ML?ICL: II
T~t e&oh and every party hereto, who has heretofore filed ~ appli~, ,~
cation or applications for a permi'*t or p~rrnits to appropriate wat*r ~
from the Qolor~o River request the Division of Wa~ Rcsour~~ ~
to amend such appli~tion or applications as far as p()8Rible `to brin;' ~`
it or them into conformity witki the provisions of this ~greement;.
and each and every party hereto who h~ heretofore liled a proteit ~
or protests against any such apphcatio~ or application of other, ;~
~i.
psrties heretb do~ hereby request withdrawal of such proteat or
protests against such application or applications wh~ so amended
A~icLz III (
That e~ and all of the parties to this ~~reement respectfully `~
request that the contract for delivery of watsr between the Unite ~
States of America and the Metropolitan ~Vat~r District of Southern
California under date of April 24, ~93O, be amended in coilformity
with Article I hereof.
In witness whereof, tile parties hereto have caused thi5 agrcerncllt
to be executed by their respective officcrs thereunto duly authori:~,
the day and year first a~ve written. executed in 3oven ongiflals
I.
PAGE 69 Show Image
~4;~U~I ~L~UU~LL~ i)iVi;)i~~ a; ~
a.
WA~~: ~UyO~~- L ~ ~ 1 ~3VE~ P.~1~TY AG~~~NT `I
~ for ~~utjofl: Dts~R1cT~
?A2.0 IRD~ ~IUOATIO~
By ~D. J. ILL~B. .1.
ARv~ . SKAW, J~
£MP~ L IR~GATtON D~s~azcrr,
By CUAS. .
~ Dz~RICT,
M. J. OWD.
COACH LLA VALLEY COUNTY
By Tnos. . YAG3L
ROBBt B R~asz~. I*i
~ ~z'rr~~ WA~~R DIBTR1~
op $oUTH~ CAL~PORN~~
By. W. B. A~KIWi.
CITY P LOS A~o~is,
C C. LD~R.
By W. W ~UiLL~UT. I
A~8.
C.A. I
CITE P S~ DTZGO. I.
By C. La. T~RB.
H. N. ~VAGI.
Coup OP SA~ DI:GO, .~
By H. N. SAvAGE
C.L. TIRS. I.
~ ~8em~t was ~eretita ~tif~ed by e~eh of t~ s~veu p&rtic~.1
a. 4
*1
PAGE 70 Show Image
BTKi~ 4004 l~[J~LlC LAWb iOQ-~6-NOV. 17, 19~ PUBLIC LAW 1004176-NOV. 17~ 1.E)~~ 102 ~`Kl'. dlO(),r)
(3) ~ ~ p~~gi~~p)L (1)
any o~~r proo'LaL'oo of YLWD Ihe 1od~aii Water AuthodLy 5Ii~Il whooe land Is disposed of ~;`n~ *c~Ion of Lhe S~cr~~ry under
have corn ptetc di~[~~ion to j~~t ajid manage I~ CwD (LI£bds: :ubs~ion (b) shall be entiLl to DeiV compcr'soLion.
~ ~at the Uoiicd SLaIc~ ahall oOL bear any obligation ~ I1~ I~UI~ ()~ CONSTUUCrION. ejust
or li~bil;~ ~ ~ j~ve~tmt~~ `nansCement or 125C of (a) E~4I~~T [)0MAI~.-No provision of Lliii title shall be con NN
zuch fizuds strucd as authorizing the acquisition by the Federal Qove~ment of
buhan Water A~~riLy wbwh are i~t ~~q'uz~d£ foe admi~~ . supply or any ~`ater couveyance or power
(4) ~~flA~GN on ~~znoING A~ITlgOULfl~.-All funds or `be ` any waler or power
tive or openitio£ial e~pe£lse~ of ihe Authority or to fuifLil transuijasion facility through the power of e~iinenL domain or uny (J)
~iga(ioas of tkie Au~ty under this title, t~ Beittement other nonconsewisual arrangwnenL
~A~S A~0 Atmtou~~ or I~~IAN WATT Au~eoaine.-No
or any other ~er't ~ into by thc lndiao
Watcr Authority aluill be In~~tstcd or `~od for ecooornic devt~o~~ . provision of this litlo ahall be conaLrued as creating any in' p1 ication
with ~oct to the status Dr authonty which the Indian Water
went of tile I~uds. tl~e Bai~ds' rtserv~ioo lands, and their Authority would have ~i~er any other law or rule or law in the
men~b"~ Sucli ~ niay riot be used for per capita payo~eo~ absenco of this'titl~ .
~ i~~cgubei~ of any Bani ;0
(c) INP~Ai~ WA~ A'mior~ ~ ~ TIL'~L GOv~Nbl~ ~ ~ COM~£AANC5~ WITh UUD(~1tt ACT
~ r~A~ i}u~-The ludian Water Aut~rity a~LalI be To the extent any provision or this' title provides' new spending
to be ~n In'l~~n tribal government tor purposes of ~~L"uu authority described Ir' section 40l(c'X2XA) of the Congressional
?8?1(aX4) of tile 1~~rnal Reveriue Code of 198&. Budget Act of 1974. ~ch auihority shall be t"ective for ava~ ftscal
___ ~ year only to auch extent or in such amounts ~ are provided in Cf)
~ 1o& D~ATION O~
___ advance in appropriation Act&
The Secietary and the Attorney G~eral of the UniIcd Star
acting o~ behalf of the Uait~(1 ~ and the Bands, acting through T[T1£ hALL AMERICAN CANAL LINING
their duly authorized goverrufig i)odi~, a~ aiathor~ to tutcr into
the ~i~etn~L The ~tary ~ auU~rized to enter into Cf)
~Ltl~~eaL to ~.`cl, as &E~ 203. CONGRESSIONAL ~DINC~
~ch ~~te~~cnt* and ~ ~eas~rts thc Secrttary (flay C)
~ n~~e~ary or appropI+atc to flilfiU ~e provisions of this title. Confess hereby finds and declares thaL'
(I) The `3oulder Canyon Project Act (4~roject Act") wns
5~ ~ AUIl~oarrr' o~ TiI£ ~E1)~~AL ~RCY REGuLA7()~Y COX~1~ enacted to conaerve the waters of the lower Colorado River for B
SION AND T&I~ 5~A~Y 0? TtI~ INThit£O~ OV~i POWER number of public purp~~, including the storage and delivery or
~ACIi~~(~ AN~ GOV£1tN)4~ A~Jl) INDIAN LAND~ water for recla~tion of public lands and other use" exclusively
(a) Po~~~it FA~[1TlXS.-A')y lice~ ~ed under the Act of within the United SLaT.
June 10, l~'20 (16 U.~C ?91& et Bbq, wm~o~y ref&~ to ?~rt I (2) The Secretary or the Interior ("SecreLarv") was authorized
`or ~hc Fede~~ Power AcL) (or any part of the ~ thi~L divers tlie by the Prc~ect Act to construct what is now Iloover Darn, Lake
waters of the San L~~s Rey River originatii'~ a~~ove the m.~e to the Mead, and ibe All American Canal and "to contra for the
E~ndido Canal- atorage of water in said rcaervoir and for the delivery thereof at
(1) sail be subject to a)I of Lhe tee. conditions and provi such pointa on the river and on said canal as way be agreeel
~~ns of the ~ettl~meot ~greement and this title; and upon .
(2) shall not in any w~y interfere with, impair or alf~ct the (3)The Pros Act provides' that "no person shall have or be
ability of the 1~ands, the local e~itities arrl the UniIcd States to entitled I(~ have the use for any purpose of the water ,lored as
perfor~~ arid ooonply fully with all of the te~ afo~ald except by oootract'~ and in California the Secretary
conditions, and provisions of tlic aettlement agreeineri~ has enters into waler delivery contrrict~ wiLh ~ublio agencies.
a)) 1?1~kfl ANO Cov~i£v~T [~~~-Notwithstanding any j)rovI.- . (4) ~fl~e Secretary's water delivery contracts )ncorpornte the
alan of ~tt I of the Federal Power Ac~ to the contrary, the ~ Seven Party Agre~~nt of August l~ 1931, under which water
~ is ex£lu~vely aut~d'. subject to w'i~ection (cI, to lease, that is ftot appiLod to beneficial `i,'~ by a California Contractor is
graat r'~~tso(-w'iy ace. or LnL[isfer title to' any IJ'dian tribal or available for use by the California Contractor with t~e next
allotted land, or any other land sub~ec~ to the authority of the priority.
Secretary, which is used, or inay be useful, 10 conn~iOn with the (6) The available supply of Colorado River water in California
op~rati~ rn~inten~boe, repair or repl~c~~ent of the system to is. l£iau~cient to meet the priorities set fnr~ Ir' the Seven Party
divert, convey, agid store the w3Lera of the San LAIis Rey River Agrttn~enL~
o~n~Lmg above the intake to the E&'~nd'~o Canal or the supp~~ ~ (6) The Secretary's ~ delivery contracts with the Cali for
~~ial water supplied by the &c~ry under this A~ nia Contractors provide that L)'e total beneficial coniumptive
(c) use under the firat three priorities established in the contracta
A?r~vA~ IJY I~[)LA~ ~ Co~~Ns&TftoN `ro InDLA~ shall not exceed 3£5 million ucr~feet of water per year. Cr,
Ow~~-Any dispositior' o( Indian tribal or allotted land by the (7) The rights of all California Contractors are defined by the
&cretary under the ~ub~~~loo (b) shall be abject to the approval or Protect Ac~ their contracI~ and decisions and decrees of the
tbe govenii~g indian Bani Any lr'dlvidual indian owner or aUo~ United States Supreme Coiirt~
i
PAGE 71 Show Image
rich occurs o(1er ~he Sec~e~ry accepLs the words ~nd would ~tla~ miLi~tiori ~ta ~ixier soc~ion Z[)3(u)(Z). ~uc1) r'~i~bu~
6~li be L~a~ed on ~ ~cb ~~ici~~ing Co~iLruct~r
noL hive occurr~ i5~ t~c ~~ence or tl~e works; and, i~cu~ i~ aoo~Ibutin~ (u~~ a')d iL£ roLal c~~tru'butioo, ~nd the
(~) ~e uiremenL thaL the remaining neL obligDtions dire ~ of the work&
(be United b~t~ for co~truction o( the All Arnerican anal __
owed on the d~'te of enacLineaL of tlii£ Act be ~id by t l~ ?85 ~ in ~ tjtIe sal) t&i~e effect upon
ParticipaLing Con Lrac~rs. Ti~ ALhLborILiC~ Co0~5)~ roc~~~t)'aIL
(d~ TITLE 70 TII£ WORXS.-A ~arbcipaLing Contractor ~ll noL eoactmez'L aiMi Ilue Secieta~ ia auth 0rjz~dtop~WI~
a p~(IOdI)c)(ICC~~tdtUbo~
~eiv~ title to ~ny works c~~sLruc~d pursuant to this section ~y ~ ~ For period gis the ~L8'7 av~ (he C
Y)rtue `of ils participation in the fund I nir for the ~ Title to all Lb~r, or SLLdL widiiio~ V~Ley Water Di~ct~
~ CoacbclLa
such works 5}iaII remain wlLh the UniL~Stat~IYpon c~~inpleLion o~ Jzo~ial Irrigation Districts of SouLbeiib caiifor~i~ ~y C
th~ works and upon request by an All American Co&al Cor,Lg~c~r aiidthc M~poliI&zi WaIcr
(City of San Diego, 1~perial lrri~tion DIstrict, or Coachella Valley ~greo~ the Sec~ta~ s~ba11 pg'MEIC 10 the Imperial imgu'tio'~ ~
Water Ui~rict) for tronsfor or title or the All American Cci nal, Its the oppoitunity 10 becoinc tbe aole ~articipatig Coot~c~ for t)~e
G')achella llr~nch, and app~artenant struc~res below Sypl~oai Drop wo~k5 -~ the MI Anit~icam ~ (~ ?i~ Ko~ 1* D~ 4, an'1
(including the worka constracted pursuant to this action), the Sec ~ all ~Loa~Cder~ ob!~tiw~~ 10 fu~an~e the wore Mtcr the r
retary shall, within 90 days, take such necessary &Cbon as tl~ ex~rati~ of tl)e 1~~no~th penod~ or any ~te~ioo thereeo the
&Crt~~ d~m~ n
rtquesLin~ con~actor, a~c~rding to e contractor1s respective i~ ~ ~ ~ 203(c) Of Ibis Ad.
test unl~ the ~~etary dotermines that &ich tr~nsfcr would
impair any existing rights of other All Americaa Caua' contracLo~, Ii5~~1~~N OV~KJSTtNG W~T£R Ii~
the right or obligations of the United 8tates, or would Inhibit the or the effective dale of ihia Art, any sction or the Sec~tary to
Sec~~ry's abIlity to fullill his rtspon~ibility under the ProjecL Act UI~ ~ grant, dw~e~ lease cr pr~Lcie rigbtsof.wuy across Federal
or other applicable law. pu~~[LC' dom~o ends located with)fl the Al) Ame~ic~n Caii~ Scrvice
(e) AuriioaIz~TIoN o~ A?~o~R(A~O~s.- Area shall lociwie the folI~wiflq co~ditio£)~ (l~ I~~c laiuls within
(1) No Federal funds are author'tzed to be a?propriated to the (be bou~ry oftbe Lix~periai 1rr~tiOii ~i£t~ict "adjuly 1,1988, i"
Sec~eLary for con4ruction of (he works descnbed 10 su~ection &1w'm in linj~ial Inigation i)i~tnct Drawing p534, excliadixig Fed~
(aXl}of this section. . erij Lands without a Of Imption or other water ~iog
(2) The Secreta~ is authorized to receive runds in advance ~ LkLo~ Iai~ds withiz~ the linpe(lal IrTigalion DistRIct
from one or sore Partici tin Contractors pursuant to the service Area as &hown of' GC('&31 Map of Im~rial, ITrigatioli
Contributed Funds Act of March 4, l~21 (41 StaL 1401) u~dcr i)i~Lrict dated Janna~ 1988 ~pc~t81' ~ ij~itnd No. d
te~ ond condItions acceptable to the Secretsry in order to 0189) witb a history or Lrr'-(i~ or other w~terusillXpurpo~~~an
carry ouL the Secretary's respor~bIlities under uub~~tions (a), (3) Ib~ laods wltbn ~ ODachella Valley ~~ater l)isi£ict's
(b), and (c) Of Lhis section. ~o the action
~ Z~(. US~ ()~ CO~~i~VE[) WATT 1~~~yem~nt Oi~ict 14o, I mball have a p~ority foe i~jgation or
other watts u£i~ pu~ over the lands bci~eritli'g
(a) Srcn~A~IAL Di~r~a~~ATlo?(.-The Secreta shall determine or the SectcLa~; P~~v£ded, That rig~~ts to use water on lands having
~nority may be t~~Dderred ~ ~
the quantity or water consc~ed by the works ano may revzsc such ~ ~nsfer does liot de~veotlie( `taso~blc and
determination at ~~asonable iuterv~ls based on such Li~formatlon as P~~t~; Of Colorado River water that can be~
put to
the Secretary deer appropriate. Such initial determination and ~`:~~ial ~
~ub$equenL revIsion ~ball be made in consultation with the Colifor
nia Contractor SE~ ~. WATER CONS~~A~O~ Sfl)I)Y.
(b) BE~EnciAL U£~ ~ CAUPORNIA.
(i) [`ho waler identified in subsection (a) of `his section shall (a) N£pA~T~ON ~ agr~tmei~t entertd into
be made available, subject 10 the approval requirement estab j~u~oant 10 section 203 betwee~i the DIary and The Met~~~poli
lished in section 2(~3(c)(3), for cousumptive use by Colifori~ia t~£n Water Di~isst of Southern C~1L.(ornia (he~e~~cr referred to as
the "District") shall reqILire. ~ior to the initiation Of CO(~tT'LCti~
Contractors within their service areas according to their prior- * bat in no case later th~ tWQ ycara prom the date or enactment of
iLi~ under the Seven Party A~~ement. . this Act. the preparation ai~d transinlttal to the Secretary by the
(2) ir thc water Identified in subsection (a) of this section is District of ~ water co~ervotion ~ as described in this section.
us~~d durIng the terrn of the funding agrccvnents by (A) ~ to~~etku~r with the conCLt~i~5 and ~mendatio~ of tl$' Di~~i~
California Contractor other than a Partici~ting Contractor, or (b) Pu~si~~'fl~ pur~~ of the rudy requi~ by this ~cction
(B) hy a Part~c~ pa ting Contractor in on amount in exc~ of its shall ~`c tl~ evalvation of variolLs pricing tiw~z withi~ the Di~
proportionate abare as `nousureel by the amount or its contri~ tncL'o ~rvicc arca~ an ~Uo~ation of deinan the Di£~ict1s
con~~ctor shall reimburse con~ibu ted funds, such . -~ el~ticity (6r each o
the total
~ted funds i~ relation tothe Participating Contractor£ for the the p~uciPBl ~t~oriea ~ C"d use of waLer within
annualized ainoanta of their respective contributions whir.h ~rvioe area1 and the ~tjrnation Of the q~n~ity of wa~r saved
funded the conservation or water so u.s, any.added onsts ~f ~~nder the various optioi~ tvaluated~
operation and maintenance as determined in soction 2(13(h), and
I
PAGE 72 Show Image
~2 STAT 4010 PUB I~1C LAW 1()()-67~NOV 17, 1q88
~ectio'~ 203(u) of the Rec1a~iation l~~orm AcL of l~ (l'ublic ~w
(c) ~ICLNG ALTERNAT~~~ch ~kldy ~~ia1: IDcludo a tkborough `~-293, 9f~ SL~( 1263)
I.'
evaluation of alt Lbe pdclng altrrrnaLives~ alone and i~ various
ct}rnbiJLatio~ Utat could be ~p~oyed by the District, including but ` Approvid Nuvem~~r 17.1988.
not limits ~
(t) reco~~ of~1 co~~ t~~rougb water rates;
(2) seasonal rale differentiais;
(3)dry year ~rcha~es;
(4) ioc~ing block rates; and
(5) R~arg)na1 cc~st pricing:
(d) Pt'~c RZvi~w ANIN Oo~~.~Not lern than 90 days prior to
it* ~an£niittal to the Secretary, the itudy~ together willi tite D;5
tzict'a pre1inu£i~ry conclu&io~ and rccoiomendatio~ and all
~pporting docii~entati~, £hall be available fo~ public review and
coin~ent, including the transcripts of public heariop which 5ha11 be m
~cld during the course of the utud . MI iign1r~cant cwn~~La, and
y 0
the I)ist~ict's ~ n~ there 8 a acco~ a
(e) e ecretaiy. U . .
LjMrrA~OM o~~'I~ ~ 1o~~OO0~ucnow-Pnor to the ~f)
initiation of constr~~Lion, the Secretary shall detc~Lne that the
~ui~merits~of this sccbon have been satistled. Nothit~ iu th'ts :
iection ~ be deetu~d to authorize the Secrttary to require the
U)
implementation or iiny policiea or recommendations co'ita)'flcd iz)
Ihe~udy. 0
~ :o& SALI'GH a~A NATIO~ALWIU}U~ RE~I)G~
Within 90 days f~m t~e 4ate of eo~ct~~~nt of ti~s title, the
Secreta~ is duected to prepare and subinit a mport to the Congress
whjc~ de~n'~ the current condition of habitat at the Salton ~
National Wildlife refuge, California. The re~ ahall al~ ¶
(1) as~ waLer quality conditions wit in the reh~ge;
(2) identlfy actians which could be undertaken to i~pr~~ve
habitat at the refuge;
(3) dtacn~ the $tat~S of wildtife, including waterfowl popu-
lationa, and how wildlife populations have fluctuatcd or o~r
wi~ changed over the past ten years; and
(~) de~c~ibe current and ~ture water ~uirements of t)~e
reruge. the availability of fund, (or water purchase5, and ~
~hic~ n~ay be necessary ~ ~~ire additional waLer auppli~ if
needed.
~ 2u~ ~LATIu~ 1~) R£C~Ai~TIOH LAW. I
No contract or agreement entered into pu~iu~t to Ibis title s)L~ll
be deemed to be a new or amended ccmtract for the purpoec~ of
I£QI~TiV~ E!gSTOR~~. 7~
1IoU~ ~ ~g. 1~7~D IC~~~~on )nI~bor £b~d I~3III~f AIini~
~ ~ ~. ~ u~d ~ IO(~~ (~I}' (eva ~e~i~L ~ O~ Ind~un
~ XEU)I~[~:
V~. I~ (I~~ D(LC. ~ conwbdorvJ `aDd ~ Se£b'i~
vol. I3~ (t~~ OCL. 3,4. ~ `and pe~~:d iIoi*~~ `agicndt&
i~ ~.tt ~ ~~iuc ~~n~enl wIIh i'i~
Oci. 20, ~ In ~
0
I
PAGE 73 Show Image
*auuu ~ ~ Au~~dJ-&~~V ~ 4 ~``~ 1
`he Sec(eLa~ h~ pron~ul~~~d re~ulatio~ pu~uaciI to cia, ~ on ~col~~icai ~uiv~1e~cy, and shall beiinpl~
h alo~ty under Ibe project Act e5tnblls'hing procedure5 to mci~~ concurretit with couaLructiooof ale wov)(5.1~e~ ~
that deliveri~ of Colorado aivcr water to c~ch uscr will ~ry ~MLll Ul*I~e ~vai1abIe such public Iaadu as he ~
not exceed those re~ouab1y rcquired (or I~ beneficial use app~p(I~te ~ meet the ~uIreinc~ts of thia ~ub~ectio~ The
(~) `1'he Secretary h~ con£tructed the AU American Canal ~ i~i authorized' to develop gro~ai~ water, with a pn'ority
and delivers water to the Imperial Zrri~ation Di~dcL and gi v~:n to i~npo~ble $ou~, from public lands to 3upply water r\)
Cuachella Valley Water District under woter delivery contracts for fashimd wIldlife ~urp~' f\)
by which those distxicts are entitled to receive deliveri~ or (1)) Qri~~oN AND MASNT~RANG~ ~ Scc~
water in ainowits reasonably r~tiired for potable and Irrigation i~Lary s~LaIl detenfline the iinp~ of the wore on the cost Of
purj}ose~.
(10) Studies coaduclcd by the Secretary show ~t significant opc~tion aDd mainteoanCe and the ezistin~ regulating and ~tor~e 0
capa~'ty Of `be All American Cwal and its Coachella Braach [C the
quantities of water currently delivered Into the All American works result jji aay added op~tion ~nd inaintenance costs which
Canal and its Coachella Branch are lost by secpagc frog the ezc~Od the benclits derived from incx~~ing the i~latin~ and 0
canals and that such loases could be reduced or eliminated by ~(~c£it~o( the canals ~
lining these ~ `be i~ ~ ~ for the ~rks
~ Z~2. 1)E~INYttO~ such costs ;ri
A~ used in thw' title ~e ~am~ervtce rea $ inea~ e ~in (C) C()t($tuIJC~N AND ~`U~D(~ ~ Secretary. sub-
to the rovision of sccboLL' 2()5 of this title. may enter into an 0
rnertcan ~rnecit or ag~~em~ wi ooe or more - C.
riol 8ervice Area and the C~chella St~ce Area defined trrto~ for the co~ctioo or I'Loding of all or a portion of alc (Th
ale I~periai lrrigatioa Diatrict and C~achella Valley Waler wodw aULbo(1~d' U~' sub~~oa (a) Cf th'~ sect~o(L Thc Secretary
Dis~ict water dellve~~co~tractn with Lbc Secretary dated aball ~ar~ure that uucb ~ot or agreements include ~vis'oiis
I)CC~fllber 1, ~ 14.1934, ~pecti vely. Con-
(2) eL~Iifornia Contractors" shall mean the Palo Vecde 1rdg~ s~g
(1) ale ~~ponsibilities of the parties to the ~ for
tion Di~tn'cL; Imperial Irrigation I)i~~kt; Coachella Valley fundiDg arid ~izti~ with inipleinenting a)l ale duties of the
Water 1)i~trici; 8nd, The Metro~~lita~ Water Distn'ct of South- Sccretary idcn~fied in su~tiioo~ (a) and (1))of this section;
er~ California. thc obligatioa of the Participating Contr*ctor: tory the
3)"i~articipating Cont~ctor" &hall mean a California Con- ~dditi~i ~ts ideatified in 3bbsectiw~ (b) of thLs sectioo, aa a
tractur who elects to ~ar~ictp~~te izi, and fund, all or a portion of ~ltofthoworka;
~ie wor1'3 described tn' ~tion 203 of th6 (lUg ~ ~~cedui~ and ~~irern tnt for ~pp~o~al and acc'!pt- l~bIIc ~
(4) "project AcL" 8ha)l rn~n the Bctilder Canyon project Act ~ bLuYe~~
(4SSt8t. 1057; 43 U.S.G~ b-17~l~t). quality of ~ of such WQrks~ including approval of the *~d ~
(5) `Secre~ry" ~h~ll mean the ~etary of the Interior. cowitru~n, measures to protect the public heallh
(~} `Seven Party Agreemeut9' shall mean that ~ree~eILL and ~a(eLy, nu'tig~~tioa o~ repLacement, as appropriate, of fish
daled August 18, 1931, providing the schedule of priorities for and wildilfe rest or clues, and p~cedures (or operatic),
~se of the waters of the Colorado River within C~Iiforn Ia as ~~~i~tenajce, and protection of such worki;
published in section 6 of t~ General ~ g ulations of Lhe &c~ (4) the rights, ~poasibIiities, and ti~bdi' `tees' of each party to
~tary of the lnterior daLed September 1931, and incor- the ~t;
porat~ in tho Secreta~3 eater delivery contracts with Lhe (5) the terxn of ~ agr~tmcote which shall not exceed ~
Cali~~~rnia Con Lxacto~ yeac~ and may be ~Lewt&if c~~eoted to by luipecial Irrigation
~) ~dWorlcsI~ ~ict and Co~cbella Valley Water District according to their
~ La section 5hall mean the facilities and m~ures specified a~e~tsinai~terest$not &n the co~~ervtd water. U the funding
203(~~) of this title. rencw~d, the Pa~rticipat'~~ ~
~~ITil()~IZA11()~ OV ~ROJE~. ~
(u} CA~A~ LININQ AOTIIOK3ZIu).-The ~cretary, In order to reduce Coachella Valley Water ~ thine
new lined rep~nacnt value of the works less depreciation.
the of waler,aia authorized tc~al or to line ththce preYlously tic~ted~ of the wo~ Such tngineerin~ Such
unlined portlo~~ of the All America Canal from vicinity of va)ue is to be be~~ed upon an a~lysis by
Pil~~t Knob to Drop 4 and its ~chelIa Branch from Siphon? to Secretary o( the rernai~izig useful life o( worlcs a~ tEe
Siphon 32. or con~ruct seepage reco~ry facilities in the vI- expi~aboci of the funding' ~oi~nts;
cinit~ of Pilot Knob to Drop 4, including measures to pro~ct (6) the obl~ation o( `be ~arlkipatifl~ C~,~tractors or the
public safety; avid " Unit &a~ for repair or other co[redive ace' w~idi ~~ld
.i,'d I'b~I~~. (2) impleinent measures for ale replace~nent of incidental rash utot have occurr~ in the absence c( the wo~ in the case of
Bnd wildlife values adjacent to the canals foregone ua a result of tarthquake or other acts of(1od;
t~ie linin of the canal or mitigation of resulting impocts on ~ the obl~ion of `be Participating Co'itract"~ or the
and wildlife re~outtca from con&tnaction of a new canal, or a Unite star to bold harintess Imperial Irrigation I)istrict and
~o~tion thereof. Such measures ahall be £xi an ac~for-acre Coechclla Valley Water I)istcict for tI~bility to third ~ctie~
PAGE 74 Show Image
¼½~ ESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PUBLIC AGENCY
COACHELLA VALLEY WATER [)ISTRICT
POST OFFICE BOX 1O58~ COACH ELLA, CALIFORNIA 92236. TE~PHONE (619) 39&2651
DIRECTORS OFFICERS
TELLIS CODEKAS. PRESIDENT ThOMAS E. LEVY. GENERAL MANAGER.CHIEF ENGINEER
RAYMOND R. RUMMONDS. VICE PRESIDENT BERNARDINE SUTTON. SECRETARY
~HN W MCFADDEN , 1no~ OWEN McCOOIL ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER
DOROTIIYM.DE LAY reuruary ~, ~ REDWINE AND MERRILL. ATTORNEYS
1}~EODORE J. FlSH
File: 1150.021
Jurg Heuberger
Planning Director
Imperial County
939 Main Street
El Centro, California 92243
Dear Mr. Heuberger:
This is in response to your letter dated January 20, 1993, copy enclosed,
requesting comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Imperial
County General Plan Update.
This district appreciates the opportunity to comment upon this very important
document. Our comments are contained in Attachment A, copy enclosed.
If you have any questions or require additional information please call
Robert Robinson, resource planning and management engineer, extension 424.
Yours very truly,
Tom Levy
General Manager-Chief Engineer
RAR: svle2ljurg
Enclosures 12 las
F£~ 0 5 p993
USE WATER WISELY
TRUE CONSERVATION ~ ~ ~ IC'.
PAGE 75 Show Image
ATTACHMENT A
F Page 111-159, fourth paragraph. Imperial Irrigation District's federal
contract with the Secretary of the Interior explicity prohibits the transfer of
` Colorado River water to areas outside of a very carefully defined Imperial
irrigation District service area.
213F~e same contract stipulates that Colorado River diversions are conditioned
LPon reasonable beneficial use.
m3 Page 111-202. Recommend a short description of the East Mesa area and its
2141 potential for water storage underground. The general plan should indicate
whether such a land use does or does not conform with the General Plan.
Page 111-220, first partial paragraph. Th~ "capacity" for a 12-inch
2151 diameter outfall pipe submerged under 12 inches of water is approximately 4.5
LFS.
~. Page 111-204, second dot. Recommend Imperial County list the irrigation
2161 methods that conserve water or include an appendix describing Best Management
I Practices.
L
PAGE 76 Show Image
r1M~ ~S SS 15:a4 SF CUSTOti~p SERY[C S F~GE.~1
Southern Pacific Lines ______ (
D~p.rtin.nt
~ ~~p'wate ~ DrIvt M~a.~:~y r ~ ~ 91754
March 22, 1993
Ni r. J uri Heubcrger Planning Dirtctor
County of Imperial
939 Main St.
El Ccntro. CA 92243-2856
M r. I~r4ifl Mooney
~i~i~in F. Mooney A.~ociates
99O3-~ B~ines~ Park Ave.
S~n Die~o CA 92131
Dei I Mr. Heuber~cr ~nd Mr. Mooney:
t J [33 ECT: Comnien t.~ from Southern Pacific for
Draft (;cncral Plan Update
flr~ft Environmental Impact Report
Attached are the comments of the Southern Pacific Transportation Co. after
i~evi~win~ your two docLiments.
If you h~~ve any questions or clarifications ~garding our comments, feel free
to w;it~ or call (213) 78O-6~22.
B. A. Rhodes
Director Industrial Devclopment
~ ~ ~ SiN~~V~O
g~o ________________________ _____________
_________ ~ v99L _______________
~O ON SBNII ~ ~~3~LLflOS
NOIS9aINSNV~LL )(Vd
PAGE 77 Show Image
COM MENTS
Counly ()f imperial
Dr~~tt (,encral Plan Update Dated January 25, 1993
Noi~ FIcment
Pagc 6-b Railroad NQise
First paragraph, fourth sentence should read:
v'A branch on this line runs cast from El Centro along Evan ~ewcs Highway
to t~o1tviUe."
This line in your document refers to it as a spur when it is a branch.
Addi[iona1Iy~ the linc north along SR 115 w~ abandon by ICC on July 18, 1990 and
i'et~i~cnc~ to such .~hould bc deleted. Also, Figure 1 should be revised accordingly.
Third paragraph, last sentence should read:
"The branch to Holtyille averages four trains per week."
I ourth paragraph, first and third sentences should be modified:
A spur track is one which servcs one industry. The proposed border project
m4iy 1ike~y ~rve morc than one which could be either a drill or bran ckiline. Thus, it is
`I
~ug~e~le~ LhaL tut: W')I dil)g i-cad "Branchilic and/or drill tracks and/or ~
Seismic and Public Safety Element
Pagc 14 D. Hazardous Material Accident
Fourth paragraph, It~rn (2) state "Southern Pacific Pipe Line Tank Farm".
The curr~t owner i.~ now the Santa Fe PaciFic Pipe Line Tank Faim. Lik~wisc, Figure 5
(2) Qfl P'~~ 16 ~bou1d be also changed to reflect tile cort:ct owner.
Appendix 13, Page Wi, Item
A.~ .`;tated previously where it states "Southcrn Pacific Pipe Line" (in thr~
~ .\~ou[d be ~orrccted to Santa Fe PaciFic Pipe Line.
PAGE 78 Show Image
COMMENTS C
County of linperial
Dra It Fnvironmenlal Impact Report for the County of Imperial General Plan (SCM
4493011023).
Summary
B. Euvironmental Issues.
4. Noi~
~. Envir~iuii~nLai il1Ip4~b
217 Page 5-5
Fir~'t paragraph, first and second ~ntences should be modified:
`~Spurs:~ .`;hould be cha'i~ Lo "rail lines" since it is unknown whether the
track will be a branch, drill or spur
Ill. Environmental Analysis
D. ~oi~
1. Existing Conditions
4.. Tiaii~poj~taLion Sour
218
Page III - 69 Railroad Noise
First paragraph, four sentence should bc chazi~ to reflect comment made
()fl P(Lge 6-b of the Draft General Plan Update.
branch Page III - 70 appropriate conditions are reflected.
219Lh
First paragraph9 second sentence should bc modified to adding before wspurlt
or drill or, so that
Fir.~t paragraph, fourth ~ntence should be changed to replacing "spur" wiLil
~~~Laflch line.
Page III - 76 Railroad Noise
221 Firb'~L paragraph should be modified as follows to reflect corr~t railroad
teri~i i~olo~y:
PAGE 79 Show Image
Two prnpo~ed projects could add hr~nch lIfl~ ~(11or drill track and/or spurs
~o the existing railway network. A proposed new mternational border crossing and bi
n~ttionaI industrial area east of Calexico could incltide a rail 1it'~ The route of the ~il
221 1II~( L.0131(l "C ea';t-west from Calexico or northsouth from Holtyille, depending on
~Lv~1i1ahility `)f right~f-way and accompanying land use, eii~ir~~inental and economic
c~n.~iderations The potential for adverse noise impacts exists along the proposed right of
~ There is a1'~ a potenLial for adverse noise imparts along tile rightsof-way of
~i.~tii~g tracks. if ~ of the new lii~~ generates greater use of the existing lInes.
Appendix C Traffic Report for Imperial Co.
222 Figure 7A
Removc "St~~nIey" from Southern Pacific.
F Retnovc railroad line shown parallel to SR 115 from SR 7~ south to
223 L()itville.
** TOTAL P~GE.~4 **
PAGE 80 Show Image
JOUTNEQfl C~U~O~fl1ft
A~OcIflflOfl O~ GOVEflflUIEfi~F
818 We£t Seventh Street,l2th Floor P Los Angeles, California 9OO17~435 hI (213) 23~i8OO e FAX (213)23
March 10, 1993
3urg Heuberger
Planning Director
Imperial County
939 Main Street
El Centro, CA 92243-2856
RE: Draft Environmental Impact Report For The County of Imperial Genera Plan
SCAG Clearinghouse #19300073
Dear Mr. Heuberge~:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft Environmental Impact
Report (`)EIR) for the County of Imperial General Plan. As areawide clearinghouse for
regionally significant projects, SCAG assists cities, counties and other agencies in reviewing
projects and plans for consistency with the Regional Mobility Plan (RMP), the Growth
Management Plan (GMP), the Regional Housing Needs Assessment ~HNA), and conformity !
with the applicable Air Quality Management (AQMP) Plan.
The attached comments are meant as administrative staff comments to provide guidance for
completing the proposed General Plan within the context of our regional goals and policies,
which are based in part upon state and federal mandates. If you have any questions, please feel
free to call Maria Souza-Rountree at (213) 236-1838. She will be happy to assist you in
addressing the comments made herein.
Sincerely,
~
ARNOLD I. SHERWOOD, Ph.D. ~AAR 151993
DIRECTOR
IMpERiAL COU~'T
Forecasting, Analysis and Monitoring
BU~LDtNG INSPECTlOI'
John Loog~lii~ City or Ri~ltn~P(c~.Ident, Gaddi VL~flCZ Or~n ge County-Ftt.'t Vice P,~idcnt, Stell. Mendoi.a City of Bi~wLcy-Second Vice rresident, John lynn VeIItu(3 Cou
President * Richard Atat~rre City of 1~ An des. Michael A ntono'lcli Li~ Angeles County. Rot,~rt flarttett City of Mnnenvi~, C~or~ ~ City of Bell, Ronald I;at..~ ~t)
Alamttos, George )5stltey, Jr. City of Uu(~ai1k. ~~Nla g~j Bernardi City of ~ At'~ies, hal Bervison City ~f ~ Angcle~. Walter Bowman City of Cy~ess, Tom Bradley City of lose
lee, Ma~lrt Brawde City of Los At~gelee. Susa. Broolts City of Ranciw Palos Verdes, Art Brown City of BtIcn3 i'hl~. 31nt Busby, Jr. City of Victor"ilie, John Cox City of Newport Beth.
Deane Dana lose Angeles Couttty, F?. mer Dl~~ City of Loma Lii'dL Richard Dixon City of Lake rotest. i)ou~las Drummond City of Long !3csch, John Ferraro City of Lo~ Angeles,
Joen MUke Fiurts City of lose Angeles, Terry Frfr~i City of Riverside, Ruth Calanler City of Los Angeles. Sandra Gc3t[¶ City of Costa Mesa, Caridace 1la~ard City of San Cl~ttit'nte.
Cadand ha rdtmanCityoftngkwood.Ro6rt Horgtave City of Lotni~a. M~ Jiernat'dez City of lose Angeie~.. Nate tlol'lcn City of Los An ge~ Ro~rt Jamison City of Aziesia, Jim
Kelly City ofSouthElMwtte,~khard Kelly, City of Palm Desrt, Bob Kulto City of (;icndt,ra, Abite 1~nd City of West Hollywood. Darlene MelLane City of A goura Hills, J*htt Mellon
City of Santa Paula, 5arttttra M~suIna City of A~intwa, Jon Mikels San ~eotrtrrlino County, Judy Mikels City of Sinsi V~iley. DavId Myers City of Palrvstlale. Kat bryn Naelt City of Pass'
tiw. lie" Perry City of Beea~ Cwettn Noui~Z'en~ City of Chino Hills, Ronald Park', City of Tetnecula. Ir" rickler City of Attiheim. Joy Pleus City 0' Los Angeles, Beatrice Pros City of
Pico Rivera, Larry Rhinehart City of M~i'lair, Mmdi Ridley~Thomas City of l~o~ Angeles, All,ert Robie'. City of South (;;`te. .~am Sharp lmpeoal County. Bolt Stone City of Belillower,
Thomas Syk~ City of Wsinut. ,1ct' 11't~ City of Tu'. tin, LaurIe Tufly.1'ieyt'e City of I li~il~nd. Joel ~Vaths City of l~s Anode', RIta ~Yattp~ c;tv n( I ~ ~
PAGE 81 Show Image
Lyu**ood Mkhed ~ Jvdy WfItbI C;(y o( ClM~ln~Iw. Zc~ Ya~av~.y r.~y ~ ~ Angeles. N.r*oa You~I*Yf RI~ide C~y e
SCAG COMMENTS ON TUE DEIR FOR
TIlE COUNTY OF IMPERIAL GENERAL PLAN
Description
The proposed project consists of the adoption of a Plan Update for development of the County
of Imperial. The proposed plan will replace the existing General Plan, originally prepared ii'
1973, to more effectively and comprehensively plan for the long--term physical development of
the ~County.
The proposed Plan Update encompasses the entire County comprising approximately 4,597
square miles, or 2,942,080 acres.
The proposed plan includes the following mandatory elements: L~d Use; Housing; Circulation
and Scenic Highways; Conservation and Open Space; Seismic and Public Safety; and Noise.
In addition, the County has prepared three additional elements: Agriculwre; Geothermal and
Transmission; and Water.
In addition to the proposed Plan Update, the County has analyzed three alternatives. The
alternatives examined include the Nlncreased Agriculture Alterriativeu, the .*Increased
Development Alternatives, and the required UNO Project Alternativew.
GROWTh MANAGEMENT PLAN -(GMP)
Regional Growth Management Policies
There are a number of policies exp(essed in the GMP which are particularly relevant to this
project. Among them are policies which would:
* Promote future patterns of urban development and land use which reduce costs
of infrastructure construction and make better use of existing facilities, and
achieve a good inatch between future growth and the phasing of new facilities or
expansion of existing ones.
* Encourage growth to occur in and around:
* activity centers
* transportation node corridors
* underut ili7.ed infrastructure systems
* areas needing recycling and redevelopment
* Encourage mixed-use developments and other planning techniques which make
employment centers easy to walk to or reach by transit.
PAGE 82 Show Image
* To the degree possible, achieve a balance, by subregion of the types of jobs with
the price of housing.
* To preserve, wherever possible, prime agricultural land and open space areas
identified in local, state, and federal plans and those in SCAG's Conservation and
Open Space Plan.
[~e direction of urban growth along urban corridors that the Plan Update promotes is consistent
224 with regional policy.
SCAG commends Imperial County for the attention the DEIR directs to minimizing land use
incompatibilities that often arise adjacent to agricultural activities. The County's incorporation
of a General Plan Agricultural Element will assist in ensuring approximately 93.4 percent of the
existing important farmland within Imperial County will be reserved for agricultural uses for the
225 next five years. For long term protection, a regional land use study, prepared every five years,
will examine the degree of build out within each of the designated urban areas in the County.
All land designated for urban uses must be shown to be built out before development of
agricultural land `will be allowed. Therefore, these studies will limit the conversion of
agricultural land.
3obslHoi'slng Balance
According to SCAG's designation of subregions, in 1984 the jobsihousing balance ratio in
Imperial County was 1.11 and reaches 1.26 in the year 2010. It is not possible to compare these
figures to jobs/housing ratios that would be generated by the propose~~ Plan Update due to the
absence of population densities for the land uses shown in the proposed Plan Update. In order
226 to show that the Plan Update is consistent with regional growth forecasts, these figures should
be discussed in the Final EIR. Specifically, the total population anticipated in the County, along
~ ~. ~L£'aa~~ ~f tf.~ ~ *fj~~3 t)'at would b. ~~o~tod by thG oommoroi~l ~d induatri'~
land uses in the proposed Plan Update by the year 2010 should be included in the Final EJR.
SCAG notes that it will be important for the County to ensure that a sufficient amount of land
is dedicated for urban uses to allow a diversity of employment opportunities in the future. The
227 acreage allocated to urban land uses is reduced sharply in the Plan Update. However, there still
remains a very large area of devclopable land in the periphery of exkting developed areas in the
county.
3
~ w ~ ~ 1~k ~nn~ I ne £nn.(~ ra ~ n (21~~ 21.~1 ROO e FAX ~213~ 23~1B25
PAGE 83 Show Image
REGIONAL MOBILITY PLAN (RAMP)
Imperial County 15 classi fled as an ozone non-attainment area only under the State of California
and as such, is not subject to the Federal Clean Air Act. Although Imperial County is in non-
attainment for PM10, under both State and Federal sources, the County is not classified as
228 ~Severe~ or ~Extreme". In either case, mobile source mitigation through the use of
Tra(1sportation Control Measures (~CMs) are not required nor applicable for a consistency
finding with the adopted RMP.
FINDINGS
229 FCAG finds that the proposed General Plan and DEIR is consistc:it with the goals, objectives,
L~d.policies of the adopted 1989 RMP at this time.
RECOMMENDATIONS
FSCAG recommends that the County calculate the total number of residcnts that will reside in the
I County at buildout, based 0(1 the number of acres designated for each land use and its
2301 concomitant population density. This will allow future infrastructure needs to be more
forecasted.
FIf the County of Imperial General Plan Update is approved, it is requested that SCAG be notified
of the city Council's action so that the implications fbr the Comprehensive Regional Plan, which
311 is now under preparation, ca(1 be evaluated with respect to transportation, wastewater treatment
and other service systems.
mitigation measures associated with the Plan Update should be monitored in accordance with
~~LAB 3180 requirements.
4
819W. Se~enEh Slreet,121h Floor e Los Anqeles, CA 9001 7.i41~ (` ~~11' ~
PAGE 84 Show Image
(CO~OM8C & CO~'4UN8TY D(v(LOrM(
C3TV ~AL~
ACO MAIN ST.. PLAZA P
CITY OF BRAWLEY au'AWLE;;c2:7uF0RM1r
R ~
March 15, 1993 MAR 171993
IMPER!AL COUNTS
Imperial County Planning Department
ATTN: Jurg Heuberger, Planning Director dUILDING INSPECTION
9~9 Main Street
El Centro, CA 92243-2875
SUBJECT: Response to County of Imperial's General Plan Update
Gentlemen:
The City or Brawley has jurisdiction and management control over
private/quasi-publiC lands within its incorporated city limits.
LAFCO has established a sphere of influence for the City of
Brawley. This area marks the outer limits of the area into which
future expansion of Brawley is anticipated. This area is(
233 classified as Urban Area in your proposed General Plan Update. It'
is anticipated that this area will eventually be annexed or
incorporated. Therefore, development in the areas shall provide
for the extension of full urban services such as public sewer and
water, drainage improvements, street lights, fire hydrants and
fully improved paved streets with curbs and sidewalks.
While the City commends your effort in updating your General Plan
it is vital that the designated Urban Areas encourage economic
development, and protect the existing characters of the community.
234 The key component of your Plan should establish development
standards for land use categories in order to maintain consistency
and coinpatibility between uses allowed in the County and City. To
this end the Council recommends the following:
* Expands the proposed Urban area to the west. The City
is anticipating growth west of New River along Hwy. 86.
These areas may include rural residential use along
Brandt Road (1/2 mile on each side of 86); a commercial
235 strip along Hwy. ~6 up to Cody Road and eventually
connecting to the Poe Subdivision1 where the County is
currently pursuing a "Colonia31 grant in order to
determine feasibility for annexing into Brawley.
PAGE 85 Show Image
* Expand the prQ~osed Urban area to the east. With recent
development of NAFTA, CALTRANS is speeding up development
of Hwy. ill from Ross Road to Brawley's Main Street
connecting to Hwy 78. The City is also encouraging
236 CALTRANS to expedite planning for the Hwy. 78 Expressway.
The Urban Area designation should coincide with both the
Hwy. Ill expansion and the Hwy. 78 Expressway. This may
be identified by approximately 1/2 mile east of Best
Road, beginning from the Rockwood Canal in the southern
boundary to Livesely Drain in the north.
* Thirdly, the City o~~oses the strip Urban Area
~esipnation alone Hwy. 111. While your Plan encourages
growth adjacent to urban area served with the necessary
infrastructure, the proposed strip seems illogical and
237 contradictory. The land in question also may be
identified as `1prime" agriculture land in contrast to
8'marginal81 agriculture land. Finally, such a proposal
may impact economic growth to central and northern
communities within the study area.
F~e regional issues identified above effect the City of Brawley.
The strip along Hwy. ill should be analyzed for its fiscal impacts
2381 to the neighboring jurisdictions specifically the city of Brawley
and included in your final environmental impact report.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed General
Plan Update and DEIR. We hope that our comments will be useful in
the final preparation of your General Plan and EIR'. If you have
any questions about our comments, please contact Jerry Santillan,
city Planner, at (619) 344-8622 of our staff.
V Trul~s,~
Ro Bennett,
cit Ma ger
city Brawley
RLB: fg
cc: City Council Members
PAGE 86 Show Image
COUNTY OP ~KRThL
DR~ GENERAL PL~ ~)[BNT
SUBMITTZD BY: City of Calexico
408 Heber Avenue
Calexico, ~ 92231
Contact: Cal~xico Plamu~g Departmei~t
(619) 768-2118
The following c~etits were generated by City Planning Co~ission
~d ratified by the city Council of The City of Cal~ico. They
~e bereby officially submitted for consideration by County of
X~uperial o~iojals ~ thee processing and adoption of the County
of imperial General Plan (Plan) Amendment.
COMMENTS
~. The Comx~y of imperial Genial Plan should ~ ~odif led £0
reflect the follovi~~g Spliere of Influence and Urban Area
De~ignatiori for ~a ~jty of C~lexico:
Starting at a point, west of Calexico, wbere the All
~eri~ Canal became~ the International Borer with mexico,
thence nort1~, aloe t~e All American Canal, to the
intersection of the All American canal and the New river;
th~ce no~herly, along the N~ River, to a ~in~ of
in~erse~tion of th~ New ~dver a~ Dogvood Road; thenCe
239 north, along Dogwood Road, to the intersection of Dogwood
Road ax:d Jasper Road; th~ce east, along Ja~ Road to
the interse~ticn of Jasper Road and Highway 111; th~ce
north, &1Cng Highway 111, to tile intersection of Highway 111
~d Interstate Rigliway 8; th~c~ east, on Interstate Highway
8, to the int~section of State highway 8 and Bowicer Roar;
thence ~o'ith, along Bowler Road, to a point .5 miles north
of Cole Road; thence east, following a line parallel £0
State 1Iiglxw~y 98 to its intersection with Rood Road; pence
south, along Rood Road, to a poTht where ~e exteflsjon of
Rood Road would meet th~ International Border; thence west,
along the International Border, to the point of origen.
2 ~he County of Luperial General Plan should also b~ ~odif1ed
to reflect tilat any development a~d/or planni~g at/or The
pro~ose~ site (see Comment 1 above) ~i1l be coordinated with
240 ~a City of Calexico (as is the Plan's objective for 1-8
~d Higilway ill ~ecific ?lan Area, whicli requires that it~
development be coordinated pith the City of El Centro~)
PAGE 87 Show Image
The County of Imperial Plan be modified to reflect the City
241F~~ of Calexi~ as a coordinatj~q ag~~ for ~e 1-8 and Hig~~~y
L 111 Specific Plan Area
F4. The CQ~ty of Imperial Plan be codified to ref ie~ the
I expansion o~ SR 98 to four lai~es from $R 7 to Highly lii
2421 and t1~t Cole Road be expanded to four laflesg from SR 98 to
Rigbway and that
L rite for the City of Caitlbe~10d0~si~ated an alte~nata
5. The County of serial Plan Circulation and Scenic Hiqhw~ys
~~ent be codified to ref l~ct that the City of CalexiCo j~
243 a rail origin and destination point arid Calexico be
recognized as an affected ag~cy and be allowed to
participate in all decisions affecting rail service iz~ the
County of Thperial.
FG: The CQunty of Imperial Plan be modifiQd to reflect that he
244f aVylication of acoustical analysis to-projects be appli~le
L only to project located outside Urban Area Designations.
7. ThQ County of Imperial Plan objective to ~flCoUrU~e the
illfill~g of development in urban areas as an alta~native to
expanding urban bQ'md~iee will hinder the developm~t in
245 any communiti~. The Pla~i should be m~ified to includ. the
addition of ~in criteria that will allow c~m~ties to
sand its ~ban bot~daries without being in nancoipp1ian0~
with the Plan.
The Cowity a? Imperial Plan be ~odif ied to reflect that the
2461 $en9itive habitat area designation of the Hew Riv~ be
L ~ All Ameribecanli~al~.tO
The County of Imp~ial Plan be modified to reflect that the
f'A~I sensitive cultural rQsQurca area designation of the ~ew
~ But ~ ~
Cordially ~tted,
Alej o C Ar~enta, city Manager
City of ~lexico
PAGE 88 Show Image
G~iiy. ot Calipatria 125
COUNTY OF IMPERIAL
~ ~ 107
~ /~i/a~~ 92233
~ (619/ 343-414'
`~~: (679/ 34~-7035
MAR 0 8 1993
March 2, 1993 !i~r~E.~AL CCU~~y
iUlLD~NG iNSPECTION
Mr. Jurg Heuberger
County of Imperial
939 Main Street
El Centro3 CA 9?243
RE: UPDATED GENERAL PLAN AND EIR -IMPERIAL COUNTY
Dear Mr. Heuberger:
The following comments pertain to the updated County general plan and EI~ as prepared
for the County ot Imperial by Brian F. Mooney and Associates. The extremely small scale
of most of the maps, and the use of numbers instead of colors to delineate land use
248 categories, makes it hard to determine where one land use category ends and the other
begins. Larger scale land use maps should be provided, particularly adjacent to urban
areas. The City of Calipatria requests that all land designated for urban uses in the City's
adopted general plan also be designated for urban uses in the County3s plan, so that the
two land use plans (City and County) will be consistent within the City's approved Sphere
249 of Influence. Again, the small scale of the maps makes it hard to determine if this is what
is proposed. On page 111-15 of the draft program EIR, the following statement is made, a
sufficiently large supply of appropriately designated land is retained outside of existing cities
PAGE 89 Show Image
and urban communities so as to provide for development needs in the foreseeable future."
The description and size of the Calipatria urban area, is basically consistent with the City's
249 general plan land use element The CIty's adopted general plan anticipates a developed
urban area in the year 2015 of approximately 2,219 acres whereas the draft County plan
anticipates an urban area of 2,290 acres. The Calipatria prison site is included in the City's
general plan urban land use calculations, because it is within the current City limits.
However, the City's general plan anticipates that the agricultural land between the prison
and the current urbanized area will be annexed into the City by the year 2015 to bring the
total area encompassed by the Calipatria City limits to approximately 4,872 acres by year
20Th. The City's current City limits are not contiguous between the existing urban area and
the prison, and the City's general plan therefore recommends that the intervening
250 agricultural land be annexed. Therefore, in order for the City and County plans to be
consistent the County general plan should include an ultimate urban area of 4,872 acres
for Calipatria. The designated urban area should extend to the northern property lines of
the property owned by the State Department of Corrections. The prison site includes State
property located east and west of Blair Road. The approximately 1,200 acres owned by the
State at the Calipatria prison site should all be designated as special purpose facility land
use. Figure 4 depicts the prison site, but again; the small scale of the map makes it difficult
to determine if all the state property is included within the SPF designation. The mesquite
mine site located east of Brawley should also be designated a special purpose facility. This
area is currently designated recreation/open space. The mesquite mine is eventually
251
proposed to be converted to a landfill and the SPF designation would be consistent with
this proposed future use of the mine site.
On page 5-9 of the draft EIR, under air quality impacts, a statement is made as follows:
"Imperial County is a nonattainment area for ozone and PM-10, therefore, any adverse
impact to the generation of these two pollutants is considered significant.tm We agree that
252 it would be beneficial, since Imperial County is a non-attainment area under the Federal
Clean Air Act, to include an air quality element as an optional element ;n the County's
general plan. Reducing the amounts of smoke, dust and other particulates would provide
a more healthful living environment for not only Calipatria residents, but for the entire
County. An air quality element is mentioned on page S-1O of the draft EIR. It has been
PAGE 90 Show Image
mentioned by the State that a second Calipatria prison may be constructed on the
remaining State property. It should be noted that the State is exempt from County land use <
253 planning and zoning regulations and the State will therefore not need to obtain a zone
change, general plan amendment, or CUP from Imperial County in order to construct a
second prison at the Calipatria location. The construction of a second prison has the
support of the CIty of Calipatria.
Regarding the circulation and scenic highways element1 it is noted that both State Highway
115 and State Highway 111 are 4 lane highways within the Calipatria Cit'i limits. It would
beteneficial economically for the City if Highway 111 were made a 4 lane expressway from
the northern City limits to 1-10 and from the southern City limits to Brawley. The City
254 requests that the County include language in its circulation element calling for the upgrade
of State Highway 111 to 4 lane status for its full length between Interstate 10 and Interstate
8. Such an upgrade would have a positive economic impact on the City of Calipatria. The
City does not support any concept to realign Highway 111 whereby it would bypass
Calipatria.
Regarding alternate modes of transportaUon, page 25 in the draft general plan, the County
should be aware that the City has included a bicycle route system in its general plan
circulation element. A bicycle route has been included which extends east on Highway 115
to the eastern City limits. The intent of this route is to provide a bicycle route all the way
255
east to Blair Road, thence north to the State prison. Portions of this route would transit
unincorporated territory. The City requests that this bicycle route be included in the
County's general plan circulation element The City's bicycle route map is attached to this
letter for your information.
Regarding signalization of intersections, there is no mention of needed signals at various
intersections in the County. The City hereby requests the County's support, through the
256 County's general plan, for a signal at the intersection of State Highway 111 and 115 in the
City of Calipatria. The increased traffic from the prison, especially during the peak hours,
can result in a congestion problem at this intersection, and affect the level of service. The
County's general plan circulation element should discuss the need for signals in the future
PAGE 91 Show Image
~at various locations to improve traffic flow and safety1 especially for those County areas
)6~esignated for urban area plans adjacent to the existing cities.
Regarding the County's general plan housing element, according to the State Department
of Housing and Community Development, the County's revised draft housing element was
found to be out of compliance with State Planning Law (artide 10.6 of the government
code). The County's adopted housing element, as mentioned in the updated general plan1
has never been reviewed by HCD for compliance. The housing element should have been
included in its entirety so that it can be reviewed for consistency with the other general plan
257 elements and for consistency with the SCAG RHNA and the City's housing elerr~ent We
request that a copy of the County's entire housing element, as adopted, be forwarded to
our City Clerk, Margaret Hatfield. with two new prisons in the County, and a third pdson
possible, the County's housing element should be revised at this time to consider the
housing units currently needed due to recent developments during the 1991 - 1993 time
period.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft EIR and general plan. If you have
any questions regarding these comments, please contact our Consulting City Planner, Mr.
Mike Gaston, AICP, at The Holt Group.
Sincerely,
ames H. Flo r
Mayor
PAGE 92 Show Image
4
I _____________________________________________________ ______________________________________
~ BICYCLE ROUT
CONTINUES ~I
TO BLAIR RO~
THENCE NORi
TO STATE ~
CITY OF CALIPATRIA GENERAL PLAN-1991.
CIRCULATION ELEMENT
BICYCLE ROUTES.
c~. ~ g BICYCLE ROUTE
w. ~ COLT GftOuP-(HOINII~S AND P~
PAGE 93 Show Image
C TY OF
CITY HALL
PLANNING & 1275 MAIN STREET
HOUSING DEPARTMENT L C£~JRO POST OFFICE BOX 4450
TEL EL CENTRO. CA 92244~450
(619) 337-545~ FAX (619) 352.6177
HAND DELIVERED
larch 22, 1993
Jurg Heuberger, Planning Department LIAR 22 1993
County of Imperial
939 Main Street
El Centro, CA 92243-2856 PLA!NMNPFN~ADLECrAOA~~~E'NT
Re: City comments on Draft ~vironmental Impact Report (DEIR) for
the Imperial County General Plan Update.
Dear Mr. Heuberger:
This is to inform you that City staff has completed its review of
the above referenced draft E.I.R. and our comments include the
following:
1. We would concur with the proposal to adopt the City's land use
plan as the official Urban Area Plan for its sphere of
influence. It is our understanding that this would require
any development within the City's sphere of influence to be in
conformity with the City's General Plan and development
standards. The implementation of this proposal is rather
vague and should be addressed more thoroughly. It would
appear that rezoning procedures would need to be implemented
in order for this to occur.
Specifically, how will this proposal be implemented? Will the
County be issuing development permits consistent with the
General Plan before the properties within the urban spheres of
influence are rezoned to conf or~ to the City's land use
258 designations? How long will this process take? T~ihat ~ th~
development rights of a property owner within such city sphere
of influence pending the rezoning? If the "interim3'
development rights on s'~ch property are limited, will not that
fact create a growth inducing imDact with developers choosing
to develop urban uses in the unincorporated area outside the
urban spheres of influence before developing within the
spheres? If this were permitted to happen, we believe there
would be dire fiscal impacts to the City as ahy tax revenues
generated from the properties would be channeled to the
County. How would the cities be able to address its service
requirements to these properties once they are annexed? We
believe that language must be added to the proposed plan to
prevent this premature development prom occurring; i.e. a
phasing requirement, etc.
PAGE 94 Show Image
Mr. Jurg Heuberger
Page 2
2. We would also concur with the proposal to preclude the
occurrence of leapfrog development within Urban Areas by
requiring that all non-agriculture developments (e.g.
residential, commercial, industrial) be adjoined on at least
one side by urban uses. We would interpret this to mean that
259 all non~agriculture developments must be contiguous to a
City's corporate boundary. Is this a correct interpretation?
We would further recommend that the requirement for annexation
be included as a mitigation measure to public service impacts
for the conversion of agricultural land to urban uses.
3.. It is our understanding that the City's designated Urban Area
coincides with its sphere of influence boundaries. We would
like to clarify and confirm that the City's currently
recognized sphere of influence boundaries as being; the
Central drain to the north; Highway 111 to the east; McCabe
Road to the south; and Austin Road to the west. The City is
260 contemplating the expansion of its sphere of influence
boundaries to include the east side of Highway lii and beyond
Austin Road and recognize that this procedure would require
LAYCO approval. In any event, we request that the document
acknowledge the City's sphere of influence boundaries as
described above.
4. The four quadrants located around the intersection of Highwav
ill and 1-8 freeway are proposed for commercial and service
oriented uses under a Specific Plan Area (SPA). It is our
understanding that the purpose of the SPA designatio£~ is to
allow a more thorough analysis of impacts associated with the
prescribed development of this area, prior to approval.
Although it appears that the SPA designation is proposed as a
safeguard measure, please be advised that the City is strongly
opposed to the designation of this area for commercial
development for the following reasons:
a) The proposed designation would serve as an inducement for
261 premature commercial development which would have a
severe negative impact on existing City businesses.
b) The proposal would be inconsistent with the County's
proposed policy of requiring sequential and orderly
growth for non-agricultural developments as previously
described under corninent number two.
c) The City's current land use plan for the area calls
primarily for low and medium density residential uses.
The proposal would therefore also be inconsistent with
the County's proposed policy of adhering to the City's
adopted land use plan for its urban area.
PAGE 95 Show Image
Mr. Jurg Heuberger
Page 3
d) The designation would also appear to be inconsistent with
the County's expressed goals of preserving prime
agriculture farmlands and the protection of these
farmlands from the encroachment of urban uses.
e) Lastly1 the premature development of the area would
establish a development well removed from existing
developed areas of the City and create an increased
261 demand for City services which would be costly and
inefficient to provide.
We would strongly request that the County delete the
commercial designation and instead adopt the City's land use
plan for this area. The adoption of the City's land use plan
would also serve as an adequate mitigation measure to the
identified impacts.
5. The increased Development Alternative, which, among other
things, calls for the designation of commercial development on
each side of the Highway 111 corridor from Calexico to the 1-8
freeway, would have far reaching and devastating fiscal
impacts on the City. We are very strongly opposed to this
alternative and would concur with the analysis of the D~IR in
262 that this proposal would; significantly reduce the
availability of important farmland and increase
urban/agriculture land use conflicts; draw business away from
existing commercial City establishments; and create
significant traffic circulation impacts. We strongly request
that this alternative be deleted from consideration and that
the County adhere to its policy of preserving agricultural
lands and promoting sequential and orderly gro~~h.
6. We would like to clarify that, with the exception of mutual
aide, it is the City's policy not to provide City services to
County developments without the assurance of annexation. Also
263 on page 111-149, it indicates that the County currently has 13
fire contracts. Because the City no longer has a fire
contract with the County, we would request that this figure be
verified for accuracy.
7. Page 111-149 reflects the total staffing of the three county
fire stations but a breakdown of the staffing~levels for each
station is not provided. this section also indicates that
there is one paid chief and firefighter at each of the
264 contract station locations which we feel is not accurate. It
should also be clarified that ~ergency Medical services are
contracted to Gold Cross Ambulance. Although we would concur
that free storage tank fires would be the biggest fire hazards
in the County, we would add that the biggest fire problems in
PAGE 96 Show Image
Mr. Jurg Heuberger
Page 4
the County include inadequate response time to rural dwelling
units and inadequate water supplies. It appears that the fire
264 and police service impacts warrant a more thorough analysis
than provided.
8. The impacts to health care services do not appear to be
adequately addressed. The document describes the staffing
level and capacities of each existing hospital (pg. 111-167)
however, there is no analysis indicating whether they are
sufficient to accommodate the various development
alternatives. As far as the El Centro Regional Medical Center
is concerned, the hospital is operating at capacity, so we
would therefore, disagree with the concl'~sion on page 111-171
265 that impacts would be insignificant. A more thorough analysis
of the potential impacts should be provided. The analysis
should include the possibility of consolidating health care
services and/or the need to relocate existing facilities.
Appropriate mitigation measures should also be provided under
the mitigation monitoring program. It is our understanding
that the hospital administration is submitting its comments on
the DEIR by separate correspondence.
We hope the foregoing information is helpful to you and look
forward to a cooperative response to our concerns. If you have any
questions in regards to the City's concerns, please do not hesitate
to let us know.
Sincerely,
EL C OF NG & HOUSING
~ M. ALVARADO
Director of Planning & Housing
OMA:rd
cc: City Manager
City Councilmembers
All City Departments
PAGE 97 Show Image
PAUL J HIC~AROS
.~ATRtCiA BURK
MARK GRAN -
CHIEF OF POLICE
RANOY H:NES
Avis R. MOORE
BE~ SAMPSON
PA :A. CANO U
DEAN SHORES
DIRECTOR OF
PUBLIC WORKS/PLANNING
LERK
~ ½(.I BAYANI I. ~AuRICiO
TY TREASURER L ~ OP ½/{Klpe~LaL FINANCEOFFICER
STEVE SKANER I I JANELL HOOGKlN
INCORPORATED 7904
CI~ ATTORNEY
DENNIS MORITA
March 22, 1993
MAR 2 3 1993
Imperial County Planning Department IMPERIAL COUNTY
Jurg Heuberger, Planning Director ~UlLDING INSPECTION
939 Main Street
El Centro, CA 92243
Re: Comments on Draft EIR/General Plan for the County of Imperial
Dear Mr. Heuberger:
On March 17, 1993 a meeting with Brian F. Mooney, (Brian F. Mooney
Associates), and the City of Imperial was held to review the City
of Imperial's comments and concerns regarding the County of
Imperial's Draft EIR and General Plan. At the meeting, Brian
Mooney requested that the City of Imperial draft a letter
specifically addressing their Concerns and comments and send it to
the County.
The following are City of imperial comments specifically addressing
the County of Imperial's Draft EIR and General Plan.
EIR COMMENTS
IT Through out the EIR document, mitigation measures have been
2661 proposed. However, their is no mention of the monitoring plan
~ located under appendix F.
der Air Quality, stronger iujtigation measures should be
267 corporated to mitigate the burning of agricultural waste.
L USinnupport of study efforts is not a viable solution.
F ~nhder Water Quality, the City of Imperial strongly supportS
U mitigation measure requiring the participation of cities
268 ande districts to establish programs for the agricultural re-
L use of treated waste water.
F Under the mitigation measures for Flood Control/Hydrology, the
EIR requires that prior to approval of a tentative map,
implementing permit or grading plan, a drainage study shall be
conducted by a registered hydraulic engineer and submitted to
CITY HALL PUBLIC WORKSIPLANNINGIBUILDING
420 South Imperial Avenue 400 South Imperial Avenue
Imperial. California 92251-1637 Imperial, CaliFOrnia 92251
Telephone 1619)3554371 p619) 355-1152 Planning
FAX (619) 355-2013 (619) 355-1064 Building
PAGE 98 Show Image
Jurg Heuberger, Planning Director
March 22, 1993
Page 2
County Planning and Engineering. The City of Imperial would
269 request that projects proposed within the City's Sphere of
Influence have copies of the drainage study and or other
studies circulated to the City of Imperial.
* Under the Environmental Impacts Section page 1:1-49, the last
bullet statement should be expanded to state whether or not
the land removal requirement applies to land outside the
City's Sphere of Influence, inside or both.
* On page 111-50, the EIR should expand on the significant
271F ~pacts resulting from the development of Farmland that
L exceeds 100 acres.
* On page :11-50, the EIR should expand on the impacts resulting
272w from development that does not adjoin at least one side of an
L existing urban use.
8. Under Noise, mitigation measures should be incorporated into
the document to mitigate airport noise impacts upon adjacent
properties and future development. Types of air craft which
273 use the airports should also be discussed. In addition,
roadway noise may be mitigated by the installation of
landscaping.
274F The City of Imperial does not support the Urban Area
L Alternative discussed on page IX-6 of the EIR.
10. The City of Imperial is concerned with potential traffic
impacts on arterial roads that bisect the City. The City
275 requests that any developments located outside the City's
Sphere of Influence would have traffic studies completed and
copies distributed to Imperial. A mitigation measure to this
effect may be incorporated under Traffic.
GENERAL PLAN COMMENTS
1. As stated under Appendix A on Page A-2, the City of Imperial
was consulted regarding the County of Imperial's General Plan.
However, it should be noted that only one initial contact was
made to the City of Imperial.
2. The City of Imperial opposes Alternative A, the increased
Agricultural Alternative. The proposed Alternative would
severely impair the future growth potential for the City.
PAGE 99 Show Image
Jurg Heuberger, Planning Director
March 22, 1993
Page 3
3e The City of liuperial strongly supports the urban area
alternative which calls for Imperial's Sphere of Influence to
be bounded by Harris Road to the North, the central drain to
the South, Dogwood Road to the East and Austin Road to the
west.
4. The urban area described for the City of Imperial on page 5 of
the General Plan should be revised to reflect what is stated
in the City of Imperial's General Plan. The City of
Imperial'~s General Plan states that the easterly boundary of
the Sphere of Influences is Dogwood Road not Cross Road.
5. Under the Specific Plan standards of criteria for approval on
page 9, the County may want to add an additional criteria for
approval which requires that the proposed Specific Plan
harmonize with the surrounding communities and or Cities.
6. Under Rural Residential development standards page 47, the
General Plan is proposing a density of 1 dwelling unity per 5
acres to a maximum of 2 dwelling units per acre. It should be
noted that the County of Imperials General Plan is less
restrictive and permits 1 dwelling unit per acre.
7. The Residential Development Standard density on page 51 is
extremely broad. It would be more desirable if the County
broke it down into the categories of High, Medium and Low
density developments.
8. Unaer the Urban Areas Program on page 55, subdivisions should
also be required to install curb and gutter1 sidewalks, sewers
and water. It is recommended that the program be expanded to
include all pertinent infrastructure requirements.
9. On figure B-4, is there a reason why the figure states future
noise impact area and not present?
10. Under the Development Patterns and Locations on Agriculture
Land Policy on page 40, it states that developments must
adjoin existing urban uses. It does not address master
planned communities and if they will be permitted.
11. Under the Conservation and Open-Space element, on page 2 it
states that when an area falls under more than one
jurisdiction, the more restrictive plan should govern land use
decisions. This could pose potential problems to the City of
Imperial with General Plan compliance, zoning issues and
community goals. It should also be stated that if the
development is to be annexed into a City, than that City's
General Plan should take precedence.
PAGE 100 Show Image
Jurg ~euberger, Planning Director
Marcli 22, 1993
Page 4
The City of Imperial appreciates the opportunity to review and
comment on the Draft EIR/General Plan for the County of Imperial.
If the County has any questions regarding our comments, please do
not hesitate to contact myself at (619) 355-4371.
Sincerely,
~l½-ards
City Manager
cc: Brian F. Mooney Associates
Imperial City Council
Imperial Planning Commission
Imperial City Attorney
Imperial Director of Public works/Planning
Imperial City Planner
PAGE 101 Show Image
1100 Main Street
Post Office Box 3006
~.I*% haniher~ of Commerce
El Centro, CA 92244-3006
(619) 352-3881
& NilSITORS BUREAU ~
March 17, 1993
Imperial County Planning Department MAR29
County Administrative Offices ~ i~93
Attn: Zurg Heurberger. Planning Director
94~ West Main Street ~UlLDING ~OUNT~
El Centro1 CA 92Z43-287~ INSpECiJ0~
Dear Mr Heurberger:
This is in response to the draft environmental Impact report
(SIR) for the County of Imperial general plan. a document
which we have reviewed over the course of the last several
weeds. Our board of directors. representing some 530 dues
paying meRbers currently doing business in the Si Centro
area, has taken the following position regarding the specific
plan area (SPA) generally located at the intersectlo~ of
Interstate 8 and Highway 111:
The El Centro Chamber has serious concerns about this SEA,
which abuts El Centro's own sphere of influence, and has
somehow been included in each of the three plan alternatives
contained in the draft SIR document Any commercial
development which may occur at this site would adversely
impact established business districts within the city of El
Centro. Additionally, one of the fundamental recommendations
276 of the consultant, Mr. Mooney, has been that such development
should occur within urbanized areas of the county, where
infrastructure is already in place, or could be provided
expeditiously. Finally,- if such development were to occur at
this project site in the future, It would seem that the city
of SI Centro, and not Imperial County, ought to serve as lead
agency in determining the appropriate land use designation.
Thank you, Mr. Heurberger, for the opportunity to comment on
the draft SIR document
~ ~
President
PAGE 102 Show Image
El C~ntro
~ RE~1ONAL MEOICAL CENTER
1415 Ross Avenues El Centro, CA 922434398~ (619) 33~71OO V
March 22, 1993 ~AR 221993
~Mp£~AL CQUNT~
Jurg Heuberger1 Planning Director ~U1LDING ~NSpECTIO~
County of Imperial
939 Main Street
El Centro, California 92243-2856
Dear Mr. Heuberger:
We greatly appreciate the opportunity to present our comments to
the County of Imperial Draft General Plan Update and EIR. We also
appreciate your office presenting the County of Imperial Draft
General Plan Update and EIR to the Hospital Board on March 1, 1993
at Scribbles. The following constitutes the comments of El Centro
Regional Medical Center to the County of Imperial Draft General
Plan and EIR:
DRAFT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
GENERAL COMMENTS:
1. The proposed General Plan will result in a significant negative
environmental impact to our, as well as all other, acute care
hospitals in the County as no provision is made to address the
foreseeable increase in demand upon our facility caused by the
population growth called for in the plan.
2. It is noted that Chapter 2 "Housing Element" has not been
updated in this Draft General Plan Update dated January 25, 1993.
We urge that consideration be given to updating this Chapter since
the location, type, number etc. of housing units will have major
and significant impact upon the demand and location regarding
health care and other public services. Since most of the impact on
public services and infrastructure will be driven by the change in
county demographics, it is strongly urged that population and
detailed demographic data and projections be integrated into the
Plan and the implications of this data addressed. It is noted that
"clean air, water and land" is one of five basic concepts adopted
by the Board in support of the General Plan. The Draft
Environmental Impact Report acknowledges the degradation of air and
water resources due to increased population and development and it
is requested that the General Plan more adequately address actions
An Agency of the City of El Centro
PAGE 103 Show Image
Jury ~e'~erger
C~mlents to Co~ty Draft GeneraL PLan Update
~ Draft ErwiroewnentaL IIT~~t Report
Page 2 of 5
and activities necessary to assure that this basic concept is
reinforced and that appropriate mitigations are planned to deal
with the projected degradation.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS:
1. Chapter 1, page 1
Additional information pertaining to demographics and housing is
necessary to be included in the draft to enable the Land Use
Element to "serve as a guide to the decision makers, staff and the
public to address the distribution, general location," etc.
regarding public facilities such as health care.
Further detail and goals and objectives are requested to be
provided in the draft regarding expansion of public facilities and
environmental degradation mitigation.
Additional information needs to be provided in the draft to
meaningfully assist in identifying public health care facilities
necessary to support growth and to assist in determining the
general distribution and general location for public health care
buildings and grounds.
2. Chapter 1, page 9 (a)
It is noted that an "acceptable project" shall have to demonstrate
that revenues from taxes, fees, etc. will fully offset the cost of
providing public services and infrastructure. It is requested that
health care services and infrastructure be specifically included in
the listing of public services and infrastructure detailed in this
paragraph and as needing such funding to mitigate the additional
costs being borne.
3. Chapter 1, page 34
Objective 8.4 It is requested that the Land Use planning and
project review process require that the need for public health care
facilities be adequately addressed to meet population growth and
increased service demand caused by said projects. Mitigation
measures could include the adoption by the County and cities of
development fee ordinances for the benefit of the hospitals and
public health facilities.
PAGE 104 Show Image
Jurg He~~erger
CQu;nents to CoLr~ty Oraft GeneraL PLan Update
And Draft EnvirormentaL IiIpBct Report
Page 3 of 5
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
GENERAL COMMENTS:
1. The report does not adequately address the significant negative
environmental impact to ECRMC as well as the other acute care
277 hospitals and public health care facilities and programs
foreseeably resulting from the population growth called for in the
Plan.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS:
1. Page 5-9
It is noted that "implementation of the proposed Plan Update would
result in an increased need for ..... health care services." It is
also noted that "all impacts to public services will be mitigated
below levels `of significance ... by requiring that future
278 development spay fees to the Countv that cover the costs of
providing such services." This mitigation measure does not address
the impacts to ECR~C and the other acute care hospitals in the
County. As a publicly owned facility rendering public services and
with 49.1% of its inpatients originating outside the El Centro zip
codes, similar mitigation measures must be required to offset the
costs of developing and providing services at El Centro Regional
Medical Center.
2. Page S-b
The addition of an Air Quality Element to the General Plan is
strongly supported. It is suggested that this element detail
specific actions and measures to be taken to assure maintenance or
279 improvement of air quality in the County. Any activities or
additions to this EIR or Draft General Plan Update which focus on
the maintenance and improvement of air and water quality for the
health and well-being of the counties' citizens are supported by
the Hospital.
3. Page S-ll
It is urged that all possible and reasonable measures be taken to
280 maintain and increase the water quality in the County to assist in
assurinq the general health and well-being of the County
population.
4. Page 111-3
281 As mentioned above, we strongly request that prior to the
development of the final plan population and housing information be
PAGE 105 Show Image
Jurg Hetkerger
Caviments to Co'i'ty Draft GeneraL PLan Update
And Draft Envir~entaL Inpect Report
Page 4 of 5
I updated, evaluated, and utilized to provide a solid foundation for
28l~lannin~ for the County and for public services and infrastructure.
Page 111167
The section entitled, "Health Care" does not include information
pertaining to the Clinicas De Salud Del Pueblo, Inc. in both
Calexico and Brawley, the County Health Department services and
activities, or other public and private clinics or services
available in the County. The inclusion of these other health care
service providers is recommended as well as the development of
282 information pertaining to location, service capacity, etc.
Currently, the Pioneer Memorial Hospital and El Centro Regional
Medical Center frequently run at close to capacity in many
services. There must be mitigation measures to address the impact
to our facilities of growth and changes projected in the General
Plan Update and EIR. Additional information is also suggested
regarding the impact on County health services and the ability of
these services to absorb increased demand.
F IVl
We suggest that the section entitled, "Public Service
2 Infrastructure" also note that the proposed General Plan Update
would increase the "demand for public service" including health
L care services. Also, the impact to the health care services has
not been addressed via tax revenues, development fees or other
means. The Plan should address these points.
7. V-4
Comment regarding the significant cumulative impact on health care
facilities due to future development is noted. It is requested
284 that further detail regarding the "intent of the General Plan
Public Services/Safety element ... to insure the provision of
needed public services prior to the approval of future development
project, thereby mitigating potential cumulative impacts to below
a level of significance" be provided, specifically with respect to
health care facilities and El Centro Regional Medical Center.
8. V-5
As noted earlier, mitigation measures to decrease the "significant
285 cumulative impact on the quality of the regional air basin3' are
supported by the Hospital and it is requested that further detail
be provided in the Plan or ZIR regarding these mitigations.
PAGE 106 Show Image
Jurg H~~erger
C~iuments to Coii~ty Draft GeneraL Ptan Update
And Draft EnviroementaL Irr~ect Report
C
Page 5 of 5
9. V6
The contribution of urban runoff to water quality degradation is
noted, specifically regarding heavy metals, etc. To decrease the
286 potential impact on the health of the residents of the County, it
is suggested that further detail regarding specific mitigation
measures for water quality be added to the Draft General Plan
Update.
Again we greatly appreciate the opportunity to present our comments
regarding the County of Imperial Draft General Plan Update and EIR.
With best wishes for your health, I am,
Chief Executive Officer
TF:dlz
c: President and Members of the Hospital Board
(
James L. Darrow, City Attorney
PAGE 107 Show Image
SIfRRA CL~B SAN DIEGO CHAFFER
z San Diego and Imperial Coun~ics
3820 RayStreet
~ San Di~o. CA 92104
19~
Jurg Heuberoer. Director
P1annin~ Department
Imperial County
Q4Q rest tlam Street
~l ~entro. C~ ~`:>~4Z-2875
Lear Mr. HeuDer~er:
P~: Comments on the Draft :nvironmental Irnpac~ Report for the
:m~eriai County General Plan Update (SCH ~9c~ol1Q~3)
The Conservation Committee appreciates the opportunity to
oommen~ on the Draft EI£R for the proposed update of the Imperial
Gou:~ty t;eneral Plan. The San Dieco C'hap~er of the Sierr3 `Club
3erves members resid~n~ in both San Die~o and Imperial Counties and
h~s kong e:<~ressea an interest ~n issues related to public lands ifl
imperial County. The Conservation Committee received input rom
~er~ons res~din~ ~n :`mperial County in the ~reparaticn of th~~-
comments on the Draft ~IR for the Imperial County General Plain.
(~r;tacned are the comments prepared by the Conservation Cornmitra~
fof the San Diego Chapter of the Sierra Cl'~b. The Committee `
comments on ~he te~~ and :na~s of the Gener3l Plan are incl'jded as
a separate response. Because numerous por:ions of the Th~IR L~C:C
c;o~i~d \~erbati;~ rrc~m the Draft General Plan T$1ny comments on the
t~o documents are cross-referenced.
~c~ain ~he committee appreciates the opportunity to comment on
the D£IR. If vou have any questions please contact -die Harmon.
J/<~~~C r~~½>.r
N~ick~1 E rvi air
onservation Comm I tree
MAR 2 2 1q93
IMPERIAL COUNTY
BUILDING INSPECTION.
PAGE 108 Show Image
(
FT
¼
PAGE 109 Show Image
Commenbs on the Draft environmental IfflpaCt Report or the
Imperial County General Plan Update (SCH 4~3OllO23)
The following comments in response to the Draft Environmental
Impact Report (DEIR) for the proposed imperial County General Plan
Update are submitted by the Conservation Commi~~ee of the San Diego
Chapter of the Sierra Club which serves San Diego and Imperial
Counties. General comrn~nts ar~ hollowed by more specific comment:3
related to the a'~~quacy of the DEIR. The more specific comments
.~ot covered in other discussion are included toward the end of the
comments. This response incorporates by reference all the
discussions of inadequacies, inconsistencies, *-3nd errors included
comments in response to the Draft General Plan Update which is
*~eparate doctjmen t -
TN TRODUCTION
The DEIR for the Imperial County General Plan Update contains
useful and interesting information about the County, even though
some of th~t information is out~dated or of c~uestionable relevance.
8eyond that, the DEIR is deticient in a number ot: critical
respects, including but not limited to the following issues.
2~7F There should be clarit-ication about the e~eographic Locablon
Imperial Valley v. Imperial County within the C~P and D~IR.
DEIR ~~ILS TO V~LU~TE I~PORT.~NC~ OF TNTF~N~L INCONCISTENCI~S
TN D~~FT GENERAL PL(~N UPDATE
I. The DEIR fail-s to evaluate the proposed General Plan in terms
(:)f the proposed Plan's consistency ~i th State p1 inning laws
retarding c~enerak plane as *spel led out by the (;overnor ~ Df `ice ot-
Planning and Research in the document. anti bled ~tabe o~ ( alif cmi
General Plan Guidelines, outed as (OPR) - The State ~gislatur~
has declared that:
Decisions nvolving the future *~rowth of the State lost
of which are made and will continue to be made at a local
level, should be guided by an effective planning proc~~s,
including the local general plan, and should proceed
within the framework of officially approved statewide
288 (coals -`and policies directed to land use, population
growth and distribution, development, open space,
resource preservation and utilization, air and water
~uali by, and other related physical social and economic
development factors. (Govt. Code Sec. ~5O~Q. I)
California planning laws as detailed by OPR contain very
specific provisions with respect to protecb~on of the natural
envy ronment and resources and other manda tory issues such as
~ousin9. However, the DEIR does nob contain an adequate .~`~aluation
~f he proposed Plan's conformance to the State `s mandatory
DL- IR. Iin~erial County General Plan L
PAGE 110 Show Image
requirements~
The Legislature of the State of California intends that the
General Plan, its elements and all parts thereof must be
internally consistent". "The concept of internal consistency, as
used in California Planning Law, means that no policy conflicts
exist, either textual or diagrammatic, between the components of an
otherwise complete and adequate general Plane" (OPR, 1987, p. 10.)
288
The comments in response to the General Plan Update include
areas where the different classifications of inconsistencies within
the General Plan itself have been discussed. Because so many of
these inconsistencies have been carried over to and expressed in
the DEIR discussion, they are discussed together. Rather than
incljde all those GP and DEIR text/map, text/text, map/map,
element/element, and intr3-element inconsistencies in each
document, the reader is referred to the comments on the General
Plan.
EXTERNAL INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN LEND USE ELEMENT ~ND COUNTY
1991 ~IR ~U~LITY ~TT~INMENT PL~N IS DOCUMENTED BY DEIR
If the DEIR is supposed to be reflective of the text and maps
and programs in the Draft General Plan Update, it succeeds very
well in pointing out the exJ~~nal inconsistencies between the
proposed General Plan and the existing l9~l ~ir Quality Httainment (
Plan for the County. (DEIR, 111188, 189.) `shy, when the preparers
of the Draft General Plan Update and the DEIR are the same firm,
did that firm not seek to draft implementation policies and
programs to resolve those external inconsistencies? ~hy have these
inconsistencies not been resolved?
289 Why does the DEIR propose mitigation measures which are based
on the mixed land use and balanced housing and jobs strategies of
the ~ir duality attainment Plan, when the implementation programs
of the Draft GP Land Use Element are inconsistent with those
strategies and would prohibit the implementation of such programs?
How would incorporation of the ~ir Quality attainment Plan
strategies L-1, L-2, and L-3 be incorporated into the Land Use
Element? Why hasn't this already been done along with the
necessary changes in the development standards of the various land
use designations if it is recommended in the DEIR? `shy didn't the
preparers of the proposed General Plan Update resolve such external
inconsistencies before it was released for public review?
DRIFT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE IS MISSING STATE APPROVED M~ND~TORY
HOUSING ELEMENT SO DEIR PROJECT DESCRIPTION IS INCOMPLETE
FIt seems that the County can't decide what to do about the
29O~H~ousin~ Element with its 1989-1994 timeframe. On DEIR p.11-13 it
5 suggested that the Housing Element was to have been included,
DEIR, Imperial County General Plan 2
PAGE 111 Show Image
and indeed, it ~as in a December 1992 draft.
The draft General Plan Update is missing a State approved
current draft of a Housing Element, a mandatory element of the
(;eneral Plan as required by Govt. Code 65583. ~l~hough the Board
of Supervisors adopted a Housing Element for the time frame 1989-
1994 on 10/23/90, it ~~as not accepted by ~he S~a~e. The 11/92
draft General Plan Update included a reformatted version of that
out-dated Housing Elemen~ With significant changes being made in
the GP-LUE and other elements it is essential ~o include a revised
290 Housing :-lemen~ which sill be consistent ~i~h the other elements of
~he General Plan as required by State la~ and which sill be a
Housing Element acceptable to the Stare. The absence of a s~a~e
acc~p~ed Housing Element ~~jill result in an updated General Plan
which is not internally consistent or complete, and therefore not
l~gally adequate. Consequently the project description for the
C)EIR rev~e~ is incomplete.
The *~ubse.quent or revised draft program EIR for the General
Pl3n Update should include the proposed updated Housing Element and
`c)~ ~ecircu1ated for the full comment period.
DEFICIENCIES ~ND IN~DE~U~CIES OF THE DEIR
The ~ollo~ing includes a brief summary OT some of the
deficiencies and inadequacies of the DEIR `which `sill be addressed
in :T)ore detail in other sections. Some of the major issues
include, but are not limited ~o:
F. DEIR erroneously includes discussion of two proposed large-
I scale privately-owned regional landfill projects' (DEIR 111-150)
2911 tjnder discussion of `Existing Conditions , Solid Waste under the
L;nvironmental analysis for Public Services and Safety'.
-. The DEIR includes an inadequate and often misleading
discussion of the biological resources based on out-dated and
mismapped information from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
California Desert Conservation area Plan of 1980 (CDCPi, 1980),
California Dept. of Fish and Game, and other unidentified sources.
Other deficiencies include the failure to provide information and
292 fnapping changes adopted by BLM amendments to the CDC~ Plan since
its original adoption. The majority of the maps/figures fail to
identify the sources of information.
For additional comments on inadequate discussion on Biological
resources see also the comments on the General Plan.
3. The DEIR and the referenced elements of the Draft General Plan
provide inadequate discussion of the groundwater resources relied
~ upon for residential growth in areas not served by Imperial
Irrigation District (lID) or other irrigation districts supplying
Colorado River eater. The discussion of one groundwater basin
DEIR, imperial County General Plan 3
PAGE 112 Show Image
(Ocotillo-Coyote Wells basin) relies on an out-dated 1977 study by
the U. S Geological Survey (USGS), and fails to discuss more
recent data collected by USGS during subsequent semi-annual
monitoring of water levels and water quality and other studies
since 1977. Information on the three other basins relied on for
domestic uses is not provided.
293 OPR has noted the importance of using up-dated information and
the consequences of failing to do so when it noted that: Unless it
is periodically updated, a plan will become obsolete in the face of
community change. ~ general plan based on outdated information and
projections is not a sound basis for day-to-day decision making and
may be legally inadequate. ~t will be more susceptible to
*-~ucc~ssful legal challenge. (OPR, p. 14.)
4. The DEIR describes three alternative plans~, the Increased
~gricul ture ~l ternative~, the ~Increased Development alternative's,
and the No Project ~lternative or retention of the 1973 General
Plan. Both the 1973 Plan and the agriculture alternative appear to
be totally unrealistic because they call for the expansion of
irrigated agriculture into the area known as the East i~esa, `.~hile
~LP1 policy specifically prohibits irrigated agriculture on
294 7lassified lands and recommends ..3cquisition of private inholdings
~n the East Mesa ~CEC to prevent agricultural activities on private
inholdings. This area primarily consists of federal lands managed
oy the BLM, in many places with special reference to optimal
habitat for the Flat Tail Horned L~zar~ (FTHL)7 a candidate for
feder.~l listing in the near future. This species is currently a
federal category I candidate for listing under the endangered
Species ~ct of 1973 as amended (ES~). It will soon be elevated to
*~qroposed status.
~ The Increased Development plan is unrealistic because it
l~ roposed increased population growth in the Ocotillo/Nomi-age
2951 despite known limitations/resource constraints of the groundwater
Lesou roe.
The DEIR does not include an alternative Plan based upon the
orotection of limiting resources as a first concern. On the
contrary, the General Plan's primary concern appears to have been
296 aimed at accommodating the anticipated growth projections based on
N~FT.~ assumptions and requests for designation of several Specific
Plan areas requested by individual property owners. (Mooney, 1/93
public meeting.)
7. The DEIR should have addressed the problems associated with
t;his approach. Specifically, OPR General Plan Guidelines include
the following guiding principle. This DEIR fails to meet the
297 following first Step' guidelines for general plan revision.
:valuation of the jurisdiction's environment is the
classic first step in preparing or revising a plan for
HEIR, Imperial (Dounty General Plan
PAGE 113 Show Image
the distribution of land uses. Information collected on
environmental hazards (such as flood plains and landslide
areas), resources (such as mineral deposits), and natural
phenomena (such as deer migration routes or critical
habitats), tells much about the amount and types of
possible development and there growth should and should
not take place. britten as text or, preferably, compiled
as a series of maps and overlays, this information sill
aid in determining the ~elative suitability of lands for
development. (OPR, 45)
Further, the OPR Guidelines suggest that the carrying capacity
of the land and air should govern the ultimate population
297assum~pti~ps, not the reverse. The OPR Guidelines state that:
[Population] [p]rojections may require adjustments as
assumptions change during the pl3nning process and vice
versa. For instance, if the final land use plan
substantially alters the amount of land reserved for
residential use, the original assumptions sill be
similarly changed. then this occurs, projections should
be revised accordingly. conversely, if growth
projections will exceed assumptions used in the ~ir
duality Management Plan (~QMP), the impact on regional
air quality should be evaluated and additional measures
developed to maintain consistency with the ~QMP, (OPR,
43)
~ None of the proposed alternative plans is based on air quality
constraints or based on concepts of carrying capacity. For
example, resource constraints such as constraints to groundwater
based population growth in the Salton Sea areas, the Ocotillo./
Nomi rage Community area, domestic uses in irrigation districts near
the Colorado River, and agricultural uses at site specific areas
298 remain conveniently ignored. Development constraints based on the
need for compatibility between uses on private lands and adjacent
8LM ~CECs or nearby Citical Habitat for an endangered species such
as the desert pupfish are inconsistent within the proposed Plan or
missing. Development Standards for Recreation/Open Space
designation (GP-LUE p.45-46) are incompatible with surrounding 8LM
management pl&ns and policies.
9. The DEIR accepts information and projections from an out-
dated Housing Element for the time frame 1989-1994. The DEIR fails
to discuss the implications of having a Housing Element which
covers only the time frame of 1989-1994 at a time when major
299 revisions to the General Plan are proposed. The DEIR fails to
mention that until the Housing Element is updated to be consistent
with the other mandatory elements of the proposed General Plan,
Imperial County will be without an ~integrated, internally
consistent and compatible statement of policies' (Govt. Code Sec.
65~OO.5, oited in OPR, 2) as intended oy the Legislature.
DEIR, Imperial County General Plan 5
PAGE 114 Show Image
10. Mitigation measures related to environmental and infra-
structure impacts are often very broadly stated. ~t is not
explained how the numerous mitigation measures consisting of future
studies, and environmental impact reports for future developments
300 will or could reduce potentially significant impacts to a level of
insignificance or to a level below significance, particularly
impacts on air quality, groundwater quality and sensitive
biological resources. Examples are discussed in other sections of
this response.
11. The DEIR and indeed the General Plan Update contain no map
indicating the pattern of landownership, federal state, county,
military, indian lands, and private ownership in Imperial County.
The D~EIR Table I, Imperial County Land Use Distribution (in
~cres) (DEIR, p. 111-2) indicates that there 1,221,644 acres of
301 privately owned lands subject to County Planning authority out of
a total ~ 94Z 080 acres, yet no figure is presented to indicate the
pattern of land ownership. Such maps are readily available from
BLM at the El Centro Resource area office. These maps are not
completely updated. Current information is available from the
County .~ssessors office.
2. GP and DEIR figures ignore the location and BLM ownership of
~ ands within the area depicted for the FelicIty Specific Plan area
immediately adjacent to the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation.
ee BLM D~G 21.
13. GP and DEIR fail to identify Fort `(uma Indian Reservation
which extends from the Colorado River to the perimeter of Felicity
SP~ and surrounding the communities of Bard 3nd ~interhaven. Note
also that figures do not locate Bard. .~ BLM comment on the Scoping
303 meeting for the Open Space Element Biological Resources observed
that: Our purpose is not ro do the planning that local agencies
should be doing, but to point out where local planning is lacking
or plan implementation is a problem. (DEIR, appendix G.)
14. `~P and DEIR ignore the checkerboard pastern of landownership
on the northeast side of the Salton Sea in the area designated as
rural residential land use category (LUC) ~6. this area includes
304 some state and.BLM lands, with only about 50% being privately owned
based on BLM D~G 21. This pattern of landownership, therefore
constrains development for residential uses and is not mentioned in
map or text.
F 5. GP and DEIR ignore the pattern of BLM/private ownership in the
rea designated Hot Mineral Spa/Bombay Beach as Community area.
~ Similarly the pattern of land ownership in the Ocotillo/Nomi rage
Lommunity area is missing.
F 6. GP and DEIR figures and text describing the rest Shores Salton
3O6~City Urban area plan ignore the lands of the Torres Martinez
Reservation, which includes approximately 8 sections checkerboarded
DEIR, Imperial County General Plan
PAGE 115 Show Image
rest of Desert Shores and W and SL~J of Salton Sea Beach but included
in the urban area on the County Proposed Land Use Plan (DEIR,
~ig.4).
17. Figures in the DEIR Environmental assessment for Biological
Resources contain numerous errors and are not based on the current
status of the BLM CDC~ Plan as amended. Such information including
maps is also available from BLM `s El Centro Resource area office.
Figures in different sections of the DEIR inappropriately locate
irrigated agriculture (DEIR Fig.5, 111-31), sensitive biological
307 resources (DEIR Fig II, p.111-93), and urban areas (DEIR Fig.4,
p.111-Il and Fig I GP-LUE, p.4) in the same geographical location.
DEIR figures ~re often inconsistent pith respect to different
environmental assessments, and inconsistent pith the figure of the
same ~title in the General Plan Update. (e.g. Fig. 3 GP-LUE, p.24
and DEIR Fig.l8, 111-131)
18. DEIR fails to adequately discuss inconsistencies between the
proposed project (General Plan Update) and existing General Plans
of the adjoining San Diego and Riverside Counties (as requested by
the Riverside County Planning Department 9/30.92 letter in ~ppendix
G), and between the various adopted BLM management plans and BLM
308 (;DC~ plan amendnients as required by CEQ~ Guidelines Sec. 15125(b)
which states that: The EIR c~hall discuss any inconsistencies
betL~een the proposed project. and applicable general plans and
regional plans. BLiP Plan ,~mendments and :~abitat Management Plans
are listed in the reference section.
L
19. DEIR contains inconsistent discussion related to t~o proposed
regional landfills and has inadequately discussed the cumulative
impacts of past, present, and reasonably anticipated future
309 projects as required by CE~~ Guidelines Sec. 15130. This
inconsistent discussion is reflected in the different maps of the
same title (GP-Fig.3, LUE p.24 and DEIR ~ig.l8, 111-131) and DEIR
text pgs. S-7, 111-76, i1I-150).
20. DEIR does not adequately consider the indirect impacts on an
ES~ listed species caused by habitat destruction or man-made
factors' and the implications of the prohibitions against the
taking' of an endangered species as defined by 16 USC Sec.
1538(a)(l), and/or as defined by California ES~, and the
implications of the 1992 settlement agreement in The Fund for
310 ~~imals_V. Lu~an whIch Includes the FTHL for review. There are at
least five areas there his will be an important factor in any
development on private lands. These include recharge areas for the
San Sebastian Marsh/San Felipe Creek ~CEC, East Mesa ~CEC, rest
Mesa ~CEC, Yuha Basin ACEC, and the planned Chuckwalla desert
tortoise habitat manacement area.
F' The DEIR fails ~scuss inconsistencies within the General
Plan Update and eval'~a:e he consistency of the General Plan Update
wIth mandatory stare plannIng laws. Our response to the General
HEIR, Imperial County general Plan 7
PAGE 116 Show Image
3llLPlan uPda;eEli$ ;j;a1che; hereto and incorporated b~~re~f einrert;~ GPO
r;
2. The discuss inconsistencies
312LPdate c;;;;;d by the failure to include detailed Urban area Plans
nd maps and Community area Plans and Maps in the GP-LUE appendix
as referenced in GP-LUE text (at pp. 3, 6).
F 3. The fails to provide environmental impacts analysis based
,,1~Jon using the existing conditions on the ground' as a starting
~`~Ipoint for comparison rather than comparison to build-out of the
L973 Plan.
24. The D#IR fails to 3ddress the environmental impacts associated
with aquaculture which were discussed in the GP-~E (p.27-28).
~mong~the impacts related to aquaculture identified by ~he GP-~E
are the following: problems associated with seepage of water
314 `esulting from aquaculture ponds in areas of high filtration rates;
poor quality or improper management resulting in odors; sensitivity
of aquatic organisms to certain pesticides carried by canal water
or as drift from aerial spraying; fish eating birds and migratory
waterfowl and impacts on `sensitive species and habitats.
25. The GP-~E and D~IR both cite statistics from 6/92 projections
of population and household numbers prom the Department of Housing
and Community Development ror projected populations. GP-~F
stimates a population of 140,000 people in 1999 (GP-~E, 9.18),
315 *:hile DEIR (p. iII-42) estimates 164,115 people in 2000 Is it
realistic to expect a population increase of 24,115 persons in one
year? ~hy are the two figures based on ~he same source so
different? which should be considered more accurate?
26. The continued use of the Salton Sea for agricultural run-off
(GP-~E, Objective 5.3, p.33) sill result in increased salt and
selenium added to the Salton Sea by irrigation run-off (GP-~E,
p .22). How can this problem be resolved in a manner consistent
316 with the eater element goal or protecting the Salton Sea for
wildlife, ecological communities and recreation (GP-WE, p.26)? ~re
the goals and objectives of the GP-~E and GP-WE with respect to the
future uses of the Salton Sea incompatible? Please explain why or
why not.
The DEIR sail to adequately address the white fly infestation
~lILwhich is described in the GP-~E (p.25).
F 8. DEIR inappropriately relies on non-existent ~ir duality
IE lement to mitigate air quality impacts resulting from
3181 implementation of GP (DEIR, v-s) and on 1991 ~ir duality attainment
L lan which contains strategies inconsistent with GP-LUE policies
DEIR, 111-188, 189).
RECOMMENDED ~CTIONS
DEIR, Imperial County General Plan S
PAGE 117 Show Image
F
The Conservation Committee, based upon the following specific
concerns in response to the DEIR and Draft General Plan Update,
recommends that the County of Imperial authorize the General Plan
Consultant to prepare a Subsequent or Supplemental Draft EIR
(SDEIR). Specific concerns include but are not limited to the
following: (a) numerous errors in the figures, because figures are
inconsistent with the associated text; (b) inadequate analyses of
potential impacts on air quality and groundwater resources both in
Imperial County and in Riverside County; (c) use of out-dated
information when current information is available from County
departments or federal agencies; (d) the failure to provide a
forward looking proposed Housing Element consistent with the draft
General Plan Update; (e)inadequate discussion of cumulative ½mpacts
re1a~ed to past, present, and planned or reasonably anticipated
future projects, including the identified SPAs and identified
proposed SPFs/regional landfills, one of which is mappea on GP-LUE
Fia 3; (~) failure to provide urban area plans and maps and
commtjnity area plans and maps to permit analyses of potential
environmental impacts in the 31,840 acre Salton City Urban area and
108,000 acre Ocotillo/Nomirage Community area; (g) i:ailure to
include any reasonably feasible alternative plan thai could
.r)lnimize envionmental impacts; (h) failure to include a reasonable
range of feasible alternatives.
(.EQ~: California Environmental duality ~ct Statutes ~Public
Resources Code Secs. 21166) makes provisions for the preparation of
319 -3. Subsequent or Supplemental EIR under three different ~e~s ot
circumstances which do not foresee the above listed inadequacies.
`;E~~ Guidelines Sec. 15162 and 15163 interpret the three siruations
in which a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR would be required. ~
Subsequent or Supplemental EIR must receive the same circulation
and review as the previous EIR.' (CEQ~ Guidelines Sec. 15152,
discussion.)
1uidelines Sec. 15162 reiterates the criteria of Pub. Res.
Sec. 21166 with additional explanation as follows. ~ subsequent
EIR shall be prepared when:
(1) Subsequent changes are proposed in the project which
will require important revisions of the previous EIR
... due to the involvement of new significant
environmental impacts not considered in previous .....
on the project;
(2) Subsequent changes occur with respect to the
circumstances under which the project is undertaken, such
as a substantial deterioration in the air quality where
the project will be located, which will require important
revisions in the previous EIR ... due to the involvement
of new significant environmental impacts not covered in
a previous EIR~..; or
(3) New information of substantial importance to the
project becomes available, and
(~) The information was not known and could not have
DEIR, Imperial County General Plan 9
PAGE 118 Show Image
been known at the time the previous EIR ~as certified as
(
complete .. and
(B) The new information shows any of the following:
I. The project will have one or more significant
effects not discussed previously in the EIR;
2. Significant effects have previously examined
will be substantially more severe than shown in the SIR;
3. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously
found not to be feasible and would substantially reduce
one or more significant effects of the project; or
4. Mitigation measures or alternatives which were
not previously considered in the EIR would substantially
lessen one or more significant effects on the
environment -
*(b) If the EIR ... has been completed but the project
has not yet been approved, the Lead .~gency shall prepare
or cause to be prepared the subsequent EIR before
approving the project. (CE~~ Guidelines Sec. 15162.)
~`~hile none of the above listed situations ~re identical to the
inaccuracies that burden this D~IR Guidelines Sec. 15162 `new
information' clearly justifies the provision of a supplemental or
subsequent DEIR as provided in 15162(3)(b). ~ subsequent or
Pevised C"raft EIR should be prepared because the existing DEIR has
the following defects:
319 (a) the omission of existinc~ informat?on in relevant BLM
documents currently available,
(b) the reliance on out-dated documents when more curreni:
monitoring data are available,
(c) inadequate discussion of the cumulative impacts of the
proposed general plan revision within the meaning of CEQ~
Guidelines,
(d) inadequate discussion of Impacts in large areas covered by
missing urban area and community area plans and maps, which are the
result of the General Plan Update omission of the mandatory Housing
Element consistent with other mandatory elements and missing GP-LUE
(e) environmental analysis inappropriately compares impacts of
proposed plan implementation to the 1973 plan rather than to
"existing conditions on the ground", and
(f) failure to address mitigation measures or alternatives which
would substantially lessen one or more significant effects on the
environment resulting from changed land use designations and
boundaries.
They constitute issues of substantial importance and will be
shown to have one or more significant effects not discussed
previously in the EIR." "Significant effects previously examined
will be more severe than shown in the EIR" and `mitigation measures
or alternatives which were not previously considered in the EIR
would substantially lessen one or more significant effects on the
environment To ignore the need for preparation of a Subsequent
DEIR, Imperial Oounty Gei~eral elan 10
PAGE 119 Show Image
EIR because t;he `information of substantial importance is not
*~new~~, but rather is e~isting information which is readily
available, would be to circumvent the purposes of CEQ~ as well as
the intent of the Legislature. Such new information' is that;
information that; (I) is available information which has been
ignored by the preparers of the General Plan Update and DEIR or (2)
is missing Urban area Plans and maps and Community ~rea Plans and
319maps which should have been prepared and included with ~he Draft
General Plan Update-Land Use Element when that document was
distributed for public review.
~ Guidelines Sec. l5l6~ would authorize the Lead agency to
choose to prepare a Supplemental EIR rather than a Subsequent EIR
if *~(2) Only minor ..3dditions or changes would be necessary to make
the previous EIR adequately apply to the project in the changed
situation.
The DEIR is intended as a `Draft Program EIR for the County of
Imperial General Plan' for use with later activities' as per
L~uidelines Sec. 15168(c)(l). But because the DEIR is inadequate
for various reasons including but not limited to those cited above,
the D~I~ `.~ould not; be sufficient to eliminate the need for
subsequent; EIRs (OEQ~ Guidelines Sec. 15162) for any projects
having ~ot;ential ~environmental impacts in areas
inadequacy/inadequacies. The DEIR at issue is inadequate to meet;
the ass~r~ed *~dvant;ages of a Program ~IR because (1) itS
consideration of effects of the proposed General Plan Update and
t;he included al t;ernatives was neither exhaustive" nor
comprehensive and (2) the consideration of effects and cumulative
effects .`~as often based on insufficient or out-dated information
such as hat; related to effects on biological resources and
groundwater basins and (~) did not include consideration of pass,
present; and reasonably anticipated future projects as .required by
CE~~ Guidelines Sec. l~l3O. Further, the DEIR fails to state thai
320 projects involving federal lands will require not only tiered EIRs,
but; ~ (MIS) for N~P~ compliance as well.
The correct;ions and additional material necessary for an
adequate Program ~IR are not minor but rather substantial and
therefore reau.ire a Revised or Subsequent DEIR to be recirculated
for as would be required for a draft EIR under C~Q~ Guidelines Sec.
15087 as cited in Sec. l5l6~(c).
To serve as a Program SIR, the deficiencies of the D~IR should
be corrected through preparation of a Subsequent Draft ~IR for it;
has been noted that;:
where agencies have prepared good general plan EIRs with
comprehensive cumulative impact assessment, such agencies
will be able to successfully focus their environmental
review for subsequent site-specific projects. ~here
general plan SIRs do a poor job of assessing cumulative
effects, however, individual project EIRs and nega:ive
DEIR, Imperial Count;y General Plan II
PAGE 120 Show Image
declarations sill not be able to rely on the prior EIR. (
(Remy, 244)
Remy et al. (p. 245) describe the use of a Program EIR and its
limitations under the `streamlined CEQ~ review process including
the referencing of a prior EIR (Pub. Res. Sec. 21083.3) by
"qualifying projects consistent pith relevant planning documents
for which good EIRs were prepared". The authors note that:
in order for a lead agency to gain the benefits of
streamlined C~Q~ review, (1) the prior EIR on which the
agency intends to rely must contain an adequate analysis
of the potentially significant off-site impacts and
cumulative impacts" related to the site-specific project;
~2) the lead agency must adopt all feasible relevant
mitigation measures adopted in connection with the
general plan for which the prior EIR was prepared: and
(3) the lead agency must impose on the pro3ect any
additional "uniformly applied development policies or
standards --even those deriving from planning documents
other than a general plan--required to at least
"substantially mitigate" the environmental effects in
question. Even adoption of such policies or standards,
however, may not be enough to avoid site-specific review
if "substantial new information" shows the policies or
standards "will not substantially mitigate" the relevant
320 effects. (Remy, 245)
The DEIR is inadequate if the Oounty intends to have a proqram
EIR for the General Plan Update which could serve as a first tier
FIR or which will be able eliminate the need for certain additional
site specific EIRs.
To effectively serve this second function, a program EIR
must be very detailed; in other words, it must include
enough site-specific information to allow an agency to
plausibly conclude that, in analyzing `the big picture,"
the document also addressed enough details to allow an
agency to make informed site-specific decisions within
the program. (Remy, 249)
[F]or a program EIR to allow an agency to dispense with
additional EIRs or negative declarations for later site-
specific projects, the program document must be at once
both comprehensive and specific. It must concentrate on
a project's long-term `cumulative" impacts, but must also
contain enough details to anticipate "many subsequent
activities within the scope of the project." "~ program
EIR will be most helpful in dealing with the subsequent
activities if it deals with the effects of the program as
specifically and comprehensively as possible."
Guidelines Sec. 15168, subd. (c)(5).) (Remy, 250)
The DEIR as it exists suffers prom too much missing
DEIR. imperial Oounty General Plan 12
PAGE 121 Show Image
information, too much out-dated information, and omits site
specific information related to the existing environmental
conditions (environmental setting) to satisfy the requirements for
a Program EIR. The corrections and additional material necessary
for an adequate EIR are not minor but rather substantial and
therefore require a Revised or Subsequent D~IR to be recirculated
for the full comment period as could be required for a draft ~IR
`jnder CEQ~ Guidelines Sec. 15087 as cited in Sec. 15163(c). No
public purpose could be served by failing to prepare a revised or
Subsequent DEIR there the lead agency has failed to meet the
minimum requirements for an integrated internally consistent
General Plan prior to completing and certifying the ~IR in the
first instance. (Remy, 263, citing judicial decisions `in which
courts ordered additional ~ analysis pursuant to Public
Resources Code Sec. 21166 b e
approved. (emphasis in Remy.))
then significant new information is added to an ~IR after
notice is given (CEQ~ Guidelines 21092.1) (and such as will be
necessary to correct inadequacies in the present D~IR including
failure to analyze the impacts of 12 Urban .~rea Plans and 2
Community area Plans missing from appendix ~ of the Land Use
Element), the deficient DEIR must be recirculated in compliance
with Pub. Res. Sec. 21166. Under that *3tatutory standard for
recirculation in Sytter - v. Bqa.4¼(~. of
2uperyisors (1981) 122 C .£~. 3d 813, 822 [176 C.R.. 342]:
"There cannot be responsible decision-making when data
appears in the final EIS without being subject to the
critical evaluation that occurs in the draft stage.
There are two dangers that can occur when informatIon
appears in the final EIS for the first time: (I) tn'e
ultimate decision-makers will believe that there is no
controversy due to the lack of critical comment; and (2)
objective errors without being -ed-~lagged would go
unnoticed. ~t is for these reasons that [an agency
regulation] provides: , `~ supplemental statement is to be
processed in the same manner as a new environmental
statement.' (23 C.F.R. Sec. 1.33, p.20 (1974).)
Supplemental information, which has not been processed
in the same manner as the draft EIS, cannot res~:rrect a
deficient impact statement. [Citation.] The -allure to
include [the information] in the draft impact statement
denied the plaintiffs the opportunity to test, assess,
and evaluate the d?.~a and make an informed judgement as
to t~- validity of the conclusions to be drawn
therzf rom.'" [Citations.].. .where "substantial changes"
in the EIR are made, recirculation is required. [Stat? of
~l.ask~v._CaQter (D. alaska 1978) 462 ~.Supp.ll55, 1164.)
(Sutter_Sensible Plan v. Board of Superyjsors
(1981) 122 C.~.3d 313, 322; 176 C.R. 342.)
In addition to responses to the specific comments, the
C)EIR, Imperial County C~eneral Plan 13
PAGE 122 Show Image
Subsequent Draft EIR to be recirculated for review should contain (
at a minimum the following discussions, including but not limited
to:
321P1) .~n evaluation of the General Plan consistency with State
planning laws as discussed in OPR Guidelines.
(2) Development and analysis of a General Plan alternative which
is based on resource constraints and carrying capacity of the land.
water, and air and which will not adversely impact significant
resource values in the area. This alternative should be developed
only after a complete set of detailed constraints maps more
accurate than in the present DETR have been compiled for the entire
planning area. Because large areas of private lands on both the
east and west side of Salton Sea are presently dependent on
groundwater resources from wells in Riverside County, these
constraints maps should include details of the watershed for the
applicable groundwater basin(s) in Riverside County Discussion
322should include the utilization of those basins projected by the
Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan. The alternative plan
should give special consideration to limitations on development in
areas including but not limited to floodways, floodplains, areas of
geologic hazards, sensitive habitats, habitats for listed species
under the Endangered Species act, prime agricultural lands,
portions of groundw3ter basins sensitive to overdraft or saline
intrusion 3nd adootea BLti management plans and policies. Projected
populations and projected industrial and commercial growth should
be based upon ~he ability of the land, water, air and essential
infrastructure and services to support these projections without
jeopardizing the natural ecosystems and public health.
Consideration should be given to significant aspects or limitations
of the natural environment as a constraint to development in terms
of both the location and the intensity of such present or planned
development.
F3) Development and analysis of an alternative which eliminates
or reduces to a greater extent those significant impacts of the
3231 project on the natural environment and with respect to
LransPortation/infrastructure and air quality impacts along the
Mexican border.
(4) Discussion of an alternative which expands the Preservation~
land use designation of the 1973 Plan to include but not be limited
to all BLM ~CECs, habitat management areas for sensitive or ES~
listed species, ~nd wilderness Study areas. This alternative
should have provisions for further expansion of preservation areas
324 to include any future wilderness area adopted by federal. law and
any habitat designated as Critical Habitat for an ES~ listed
species. ~ll authorized uses and development standards should be
compatible with the management needs and objectives of the state or
federal agency wi th management au thori ty. Boundaries should extend
sufficiently beyond the boundaries of special management areas to
DEIR, Tmperial County General Plan 4
PAGE 123 Show Image
compatibility state and/or federal management policies and
ensure
plans.
L
F~~) Discussion of consistency or compatibility pith federal land
management mandates related to 8Lt~1 and US Fish and wildlife Service
(USF~S), and include updated maps/figures delineating 8L~ areas of
Critical environmental Concern. The discussion should include ~Ltl
-3nd USF~S habitat management responsibilities and planning pith
325 reference to the desert tortoise (listed in 1990), flat tail horned
lizard (listing anticipated this year) and endangered desert
pupfish and other state or federal listed, proposed or candidate
~pecies or populations. Discussion should also include appropriate
maps/figures sho~~ing the pattern of federal, st.3te, county, Indian,
3nd private lands within the County.
~(6) Environmental analyses which include consider3tion of the
3261 detailed Urban area Plans and maps and detailed Community area
Plans and maps.
(7) Discussion of groundwater quantity/water quality r~source
constraints in relation to projected requirements and potential
impacts rolated to build-out under the Land Use Element for each
327 *~roundwater basin to be relied on, including the groundwater basin
in Riverside County from which well water is supplied to Fmperial
County communities along the Salton Sea.
(8) The r3circulated draft EIR should also include but not ~e
limited to the issues discussed below.
DRIFT PROG~~M EIR ~OR THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE IS IN~DE~U~TE
Environmental impact reports (`~EIRs'~) serve a number of
important functions. The documents force agencies to
d..eye.lp~~s~jIic__informa~tion__about how~~roIe5;t.3...~£fla...y
environment; they involve the public
in environmental decisionmaking; they require
decisionmakers to reveal their environmental and
economic values so that the public can remember come
328 election day; they facilitate interagency consultation;
and they generate proposals for project modification to
ce effected through adoption of alternatives or
mitigation measures. (emphasis added) (Remy, p4).
Put simply, the basic purpose of an EIR is to provide public
agencies and the members of the public with sufficient detailed
information or data which is relevant to the proposed project and
indicate the relationship of such information or data to the
environmental impact report. ~nd specifically, ~to list ways in
which the significant effects of such a project might be minimized;
~nd to indicate alternatives to such a project. (Public Resources
Code Sec. 21061.)
DEI~, Imperial County General Plan -~
PAGE 124 Show Image
Public Resources Sec. 21001.1 further declares thab it is the
(
policy of the state that projects to be carried out by public
agencies be subject to the same level or review and consideration
under this division as that of private projects required to be
approved by public agencies.
328 Public Resources Code Sections 21000 (a) through (g) and 21001
(a) through (g) explicitly spell out the policies of the
Legislature with respect to CEQ~, the California Environmental
Quality act. The role of the EIR in protecting California's
environmental resources under CEQ~ is discussed in more ~~ecific
detail of the California Supreme Court in ~t5 Laurel__Heicihts
I~mpgovQment ~ssn. v._R (1938) 47
C.3d 376,390,39l,392,394,~96,398,~99 253 C.R. 426 decision. (See
appendix.)
DEIR SUMMERY DOES NOT ~DEQU~TEL~ REFLECT ENvIRONMENTAL ISSUES
ADDRESSED IN TEXT ~ND MIPS OF DEIR END/OR IN TEXT ~ND MIPS OF
GENERAL PLAN UPD~TE.PROJECT BEING EV.~LU~TED
1. Land Use
The DEIR Summary is inadequate because it f~ils to include
some of the major areas of conflicr r;ha~ `.~ill esult form
im~1ementation of the Gener~l Plan, particularly where land use
categories or authorized uses within ~he categories have changes. (
The DEIR discusses the potential ot the GP-Land Use Element
(GP-LUE) to result in a *con~lic~ between a ci:y's sphere of
influence and a proposed Urban area designation.' (DEIR, S-2.) But
the discussion fails to note the even more serious conflicts that
are likely to result as the areas of urbanization extend beyond the
present urban limits and further into the adjacent irrigated
farmlands. The impacts of increased urbanization and expansion of
residential development were addressed in some detail in the GP-
agricultural Element (p.18-23, 30-32, 34, 36, 40-41) and should
329 also be included in any DEIR summary.
additionally, the DEIR Summary is inadequate because it fails
to mention the increased conflicts between authorized uses on
private lands under the Recreation/Open Space land use category and
the adopted management plans, actions nd policies of the Bureau o~
Laid Management on its adjacent or surrounding lands, including
~reas of Critical Environmental Concern. This planning problem is
exacerbated by the failure of either the GP or the DEIR to include
any maps showing patterns of federal7 state, Indian Reservation
lands and private lands.
Further, to assert that the adverse impacts associated with
Special Purpose Facilities (SPFs) referencing `Implementation
Strategies included in the Land Use Element of the elan Update
(DEIR, 5-2) is misleading. It is misleading `because the GP-LUE
DEIR, Imperial County General Plan 16
PAGE 125 Show Image
contains no Implementation Policies and Programs (GP-LU~, Section
D. p.54-56) related to or even mentioning Special Purpose
facilities. Under GP-LUE Section C, `Land Use Designations and
Standards' there are development standards" for solid waste
facilities (GP-LUE, p.48-49), but not for any of the other uses
which `may be permitted within the Special Purpose Facility land
use designation' (GP-LUE, p.49). Those other listed uses for which
no development standards are mentioned include the following: `muses
which are appropriate, supportive, or compatible with the principal
Special Purpose Facility use of the site." (GP-LU~, p.49.) Uses
described in the conditional use permit may include uses such as:
commercial, industrial, agricultural uses; facilities
operated by public agencies or public u~ilit~es,
geothermal facilities, solid waste sorting, recovery1 and
recycling facilities; mining and processing of mineral,
aggregate, or other natural resources; private or public
parks or recreational facilities; employee residences
where not subject to adverse air duality or other impacts
incompatible with residential use. (GP-LUE, p.49.)
329P~~P-LUF also includes prisons and airports within the SPFs (GP-LUE,
p.48). rn other words, the SPFs could include just about every
imaginable land use with the e.~ception of urban residential.
~it;hout GP-LU~ discussion of standards or implementation policies
3nd programs, it would appear that no criteria have been Qroposed
within any subsection of the GP-LUE for *3ny SPF other than solid
w~ ste facilities.
The summary also fails to mention land use conflicts
~~ssociated with the potential inclusion of hazardous waste
t;reatment facilities, incineration, stabilization and
solidification, residuals repository in the Industrial land use
designation at Plaster City, without the mention of even a
conditional use permit.
he DEIR summary fails to mention the potential infr3structure
impacts of urbanization and increased winter visitors to zhe west
of the Salton Sea, in the Hot Mineral Spa/Bombay Beach area, at
Felicity and ~interhaven.
~. .~griculture
How probable is it that alternative SP~ sites (D~IR, S-3)
would be chosen to avoid agricultural impacts once they have been
mapped on the Proposed Land Use Plan?
330 Specifically where or how would `replacement Important
Farmland" (DEIR, S-2) be located? Is this intended to include
lands. currently under Federal management in the East 3nd rest
Mesas? If so, the authors should review the BLM 1985 Plan
amendments including the added prohibition to uses of irrigated
agriculture on all but unclassified lands, as well as the East Mesa
~CEC wildlife Habitat Management Plan.
DEIR, Imperial County (general Plan 17
PAGE 126 Show Image
VJhat is meant by the ~signed state[ment]s related to (
mitigation of indirect impacts (DEIR, S-3)? could such statements
330 become the equivalent of deed restrictions as such and be legally
binding on all future owners?
3. Traffic Circulation
The DEIR fails to adequately discuss the impacts of upgrading
2 lane roads such as Forrester Road to .3 4 lane road, including
direct disturbance of habitat and noise impacts resulting from
increased volumes of traffic. These impacts are mentioned in GP-
CE, p.19, 5-4,5,7.) How would the future volumes [of traffics
conform[ing] to projections (S-4) result in no adverse impacts?
331 ~hy does the discussion of traffic circulation fail to include
other modes of transportation such as railroads and bicycle travel?
There is inadequate mention of the impacts that could result from
the widening of various segments of the State highways ~nd the
construction of the proposed new SR-7 north from the proposed new
border crossing east of Calexico. How can impacts be mitigated by
the preparation. of additional studies?
4. Noise
Statements about increased noise from expanded r~il'.-oad
service' and the use of railroads to reduce long haul trucking
hould also have been addressed in sections on tr3nsporta~ion ;~..nd
infrastructure. The DEIR discussion is no'; reflective o~ the ~ext
in the GP-NE or GP-CE.
`4hy is the "proposed Mesquite Landfill near Glamis' (DE:R S
5) mentioned by name in the summary for environmental issues
related to noise, but not in the sections related to Land Use of
Circulation? Discussion of this issue is inconsistent even within
the DEIR Summary.
332 Why are SR-7 and SR-86 construction and improvements mentioned
by name in discussion of noise impacts, but not in discussion on
the preceding page under traffic circulation?
Why is there no mention of the noise impacts associated ~jith
mining operations, sand and gravel operations, and heavy industry?
How would the preparation of an acoustical analysis' for
discretionary projects serve to mitigate the impacts of noise? The
statement that: "The County shall assure that noise impacts are
analyzed where appropriate" (DEIR, S-6) is not reassuring, and
provides no hint of any mitigation measures that might be triggered
as the result of the required acoustical analysIs.
5. Biological Resources
although most of the native vegetation in the cultivated and
333 urbanized parts of the central portion of imperial County have been
lost due to man's activities, the same is not true for the
remainder of the County, most of which is not available for private
DEIR, Imperial County General Plan 18
PAGE 127 Show Image
`development; as a result of federal management.
among the current and anticipated impacts to biological
resources within the County'~, the following impacts, identified
333 elsewhere in either the DEIR or GP and have been identified: (a)
direct; and indirect; impacts (including noise and air pollution
from) from airports,, railoads, and landfills including proposed
regional landfills.
8 ~ir Quality
\;rom hy is there no mention of the air quality impacts resulting
Both are well recognized sources of increased levels of dust and
334 *mineral extractions and from off-road vehicle r'~creation?
increased pot;ential for wind erosion.
10. Water Quality
Contrary to the conclusion in the summary, new residential,
commercial and recreational development;~5 in groundwater dependent;
areas have the potential to cause significant impacts to water
quality. These most; groi'~ndwater dependent; areas are areas where
there is not presently agriculture, so impacts of new development
would add to the existing impacts. This has not; been adequately
.sddressed anywhere in the DEIR or GP including the GP-WE. The
assertion that; mitigation (neasures cannot; be identified at; present
`because future uses are unknown (DEIR, S~~l) seefns both misleading
and irresponsible. The intended fut;ure uces are spelled out in t;he
detailed descriptions of authorized uses in the G~-LUE alone with
standards for development within each land use cat;egory.
The County knows that; It has groundwater basins with serious
resource constraints becduse it; has been funding studies of
groundwater resources for a number of years, including more than 15
years o~ monitoring of the Ocotillo-Coyot;e ~ells basin.by USGS. So
why are there no mitigation measures specifically protecting
watersheds and recharge areas for groundwat;er basins and limiting
growth by the establishment of minimum lot sizes and included in
Objectives 8.11 and 8.12 (GP-C/OSE, p.41)? Clearly the DEIR is not;
reflective of the project description' included in the General
Plan Update.
11. Geology/soils
Based on the proposed uses in the Recreation/Open Space land
use category, including extractive operations and intensive
336 recreation uses, there is the potential for severe disturbance to
the soil surface which could result in degraded air quality and/or
increase erosion by either wind or water. Why are these issues not
addressed in the DEIR Summary?
F 12. Flood Control/Hydrology
~s is discussed in depth in this response and in the comments
on the draft General Plan Update, the Water element is woefully
I inadequate in its treatment; of groundwater resources. The goals,
DEIR Imperial County General Plan 19
PAGE 128 Show Image
objectives, ~nd policies of the Water Element all basically ignore
C
groundwater resources or provide grossly inadequate or out-dated
discussion o~ ~he groundwater resources upon which a number of
unincorporated communities in the County rely.
The GP-WE did not discuss the use of reclaimed water
facilities "to aid in groundwater recharge" or to "avoid the future
need for disruptive :oipeline construction activiLies in "built-out"
areas as described in DEIR, 5-13). Is this intended to be a
proposal for groundwater dependent areas, or for expanding
urbanization into agricultural lands served by Colorado River
water? In Imperial County it is the Public Works Department which
has engineers. Is the "Engineering Department separate from Lhe
Public Works Department?
DEIR ~~LTERN~TIVE5 TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT ~RE INFE£~SIBLE
1. Increased ~gricul Lure ~lLernative
By designating a "portion of the East Mesa as agriculture"
(DEIR 5-14), the preparer.:- have created an infeasible and
unrealistic non-.3lternative. The majority of the East Mesa is
under BLM management, including the East Mesa area of Critical
Environmental Concern. The East Mesa ~CEC was oriqinally
de'~ignated in the BLi~1 CDC~ Plan in part to manage flat-tailed
horned hard habiL~L. In its 1983 East Mesa Wildlife Habitat
(
Management Plan, one of BLPI's planned actions was the iniLia~ion of
a "land exchange/acquisition program" for identified private lands.
(8LM EMWHMP, 1933, p.5) The purpose of the land acquisition was
to "prevent habitat loss and to prevent possible impacts of
pesticide use when inholdings are converted to agricultural use.
(BLri, supra, p.5.)
Because the Increased ~griculture alternative has as one of
its main features the e~pansion onto federal lands for which
;-~dopLed management plans do not contemplate disposal of lands for
conversion to agriculture, the Increased ~griculLure alternative is
.3 non-alternative as described and need not be further evaluated.
2. Increased Development ~l ternative
The Increased Development alternative is also not a realistic
or feasible alternative because it includes mapped areas for
increased populations in the Ocotillo/Nomirage community area where
there are groundwater resource constraints as to the available
water for future growth. To ignore the resource constraints
339 results in drafting an infeasible alternative. It also includes a
proposed SP~ at Gordon's ~ell, a plan incompatible with BLM
management of the surrounding areas. By designating laroer urban
areas it would encourage leapfrogged development into the
agricultural areas surrounding urban centers. Thus, again, the
Increased Development alternative as presented in the DEIR is a
non-al terna Live.
DEIR. Imperial County General Plan `Co
PAGE 129 Show Image
F ~, No Project ~lternative/l97;' General Plan
The 1973 Plan is also a non-alternative for the same reasons
both of the above alternatives are non-alternatives. additional
reasons for the 1973 Plan to be considered a non-alternative are:
(a) it designated large areas of 8Ltl land to the north and rest of
Ocotillo for residential development; (b) it designates large areas
of SLM land for heavy industry in the Plaster City ~rea; (c) it
inapproQriately located a large area of agricultural land along the
340 New River north of Seeley for industry; and (d) patterns of
development, particularly industrial development have not followed
that plan.
Therefore, the DEIR contains neither a reasonable range of
alternatives to the proposed project;, nor does it contain any
reasonable and feasible alternatives. Consequently the DEIR is
inadequate for failing to provide meaningful discussion of
alternatives as required by ~
DEIR CONTAINS ~ INCCMPL~T~ ~ND IN~CCUR~TE PROJECT
DESCR ~PT~ON
FT he project description should contain a brief discussion
~e.~plaining that the imperial County General Plan Update only covers
341w levelopment on private or county owned ~.ands and not on state,
federal or indian lands.
L
The DEIR, in its program description, includes a list of the
purposes of the General Plan Update. In the preparation of the
Draft Program EIR, it should be refflembered that the courts have
342 determined that under CE~~ eview, "~nv ironmental values are to be
assigned greater height than the needs of economic growth." (San
~ and Coy.Dty~o..~ San Franc'isco (1974)
48 C.~.3d 584, 591; 122 C.R. 100.)
EIRs can serve a number of important purposes including
forcing agencies "to develop specific information about how
projects may adversely affect the environment; they involve the
public in environmental decision-making; they require
decisionmakers to reveal their "environmental and economic values"
so that the public can remember these values come election day"
(Remy, 24).
343' ... CE~~ Guidelines define "project" to mean the whole
of an action" that may result in either a direct or
indirect physical change in the environment. (CE~~
Guidelines Sec. 15378, subd.(a).) each qroject" must be
fully analyzed in a single environmental review document.
Thus, in performing its analysis, an agency generally may
not split a protect into two or more segments. (Remy,
p.47)
DEIR. Imperial County General Plan 21
PAGE 130 Show Image
(
CEQ~ requires: `~that environmental considerations do not k
become subunerged by chopping a large project into many little ones
-- each with minimal potential impact on the environment -- which
cumulatively may have disastrous consequences. (C; tizens
~sgciation for Sensible of Bisffio~ ~rea V. Cour~t~f
In~o (1985) 172 C.~. 3d 151, 165-166.)
For purposes of impact assessment, a lead agency should
define its project broadly to ensure a complete analysis
of impacts resulting from future expansion or
continuation of the initial aspects or phases of a
project. Such impacts resulting from fu tu re expansion or
continuation of the project is 3 reasonably foreseeable
consequence of the project as initially conceived, and
where the actions will change the scope or nature of the
343 initial project or its environment31 effects. (Laurel
Hey~hts Improvement association v. Regents of the
University of California (l~88) 47 C. 3d 376, 395-396)
p253 C.R. 426]] Cited in Remy (1993), p. 47).
CE~~ Guidelines Sec. 15378 5tates that:
(a) `Project means the whole of an action which has the
potential for resulting in a physical change in the
environment directly or ultimately, and that is any of
the followinQ: (
(1) ~ny activity diec~1y jndertaken by any public
agency including but not. limited to .. . enactment and
amendment of zoning ordinances, and the adootion and
amendment of local General Plans or elements thereof
pursuant to Government Code Sections 65100-65700. (C~Q~
Guidelines Sec. 15387.)
DEFEF?RING SP~ ~N~LYSIS RESULTS IN IN~D~QU~TE PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
The proposed General Plan Update Land Use Element (LUE, p. 8-
19) in its discussion of `Speci~ic Plan area land use category
(SPa) discusses eight designated SP~ locations which are depicted
in the DEIR Fig.4, Proposed Land Use Plan", p. Ill-Il. DEIR p.
111-13 states that:
Land within this category usually has environmental
constraints or unique land use concerns or opportunities
which require special land use and/or design control.
344 Suitable areas also include lands proposed ~or large-
scale urban development, natural resource protection,
historic preservation, or other use requiring more
detailed planning than would typically be required by
County Zoning or Subdivision Ordinance. (DEIR p. 111-13)
Under general discussion of Specific Plans in the General Plan
Land Use Element (GP-LUE) it is noted that detailed discussion of
DEIR, Imperial County General Plan 22
PAGE 131 Show Image
the land uses in this SP~ category will be deferred until some
future time with separate approval by the Board of Supervisors.
There is a brief description of the proposed uses for each proposed
SP~ location is provided in the Land Use Element. However, the two
paragraph policy discussion included under the `objectives for
implementing each Specific Plan area suggests the DEIR intent to
chop the larger General Plan update project into many smaller ones,
344 an action unacceptable under CEQ~. Such a division of the general
plan update and proposed actions can result in an agency
overlooking the `whole of the action" of the project's cumulative
impacts "by separately focusing on isolated parts of the whole."
(Mc~yeen v. Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Re,~ona4_Op~
1144 [249 C.R 439], cited
in Remy, p993, p 47.)
The D~IR Summary for Environmental issues, environmental
impacts of Land Use states:
because of possible conflicts between proposed Specific
Plan area (SPa) land uses and uses adjacent to the SPAs,
-~ potential for significant adverse land use impacts
exists The SPAs with a potential for significant land
345 use impacts are Mesquite Lake, Interstate 8/State Rotate
iLl Felicity, Glamis, the Holtville ~~ir Strip, Tamarack
~.~nyn-n Ranch, East Border Crossing, and Bravo Ranch.
(DEIR ~. S-2~
The above List of "designated" SPAs includes all the SPAs shown on
DEIR Fig. 4, Proposed Land Use Plan.
The policies related to each designated SP~ contain language
identical to or similar to the following in GP-LUE pp.
12,13,14, 15, 17,18,19:
The Specific Plan shall include a public facilities
~in~ncing plan outlining needed capital improvements,
feasible financing mechanisms, and timing for their
construction. This includes sewer, water,
transportation, fire and police protection parks, 3nd
346 schools.
The specific Plan shall ~e accompanied by an
Environmental Impact Report which includes an analysis of
project impacts to include the ol~owing: agriculture,
air and water duality, biology, cultural resources,
growth inducement, traffic, visual/aesthetics, and such
other issues as required by the County of Imperial and
other Responsible agencies. (GP-LUE, pp.12-15,17-l9.)
The DEIR summary states that: `Because of possible conflicts
between proposed Specific Plan area (5Pm) land uses and uses
adjacent to the SPAs, a potential for significant adverse land use
~ exists.' (DEIR, 5-2.) "Requiring site specific environmental
studies" (DEIR, 111-16) for the propcse~/rnaPped SPAs would result
in the piecemealing of the proposed General Plan Update project.
DEIR, Imperial County General Plan 23
PAGE 132 Show Image
Not only does postponing until some future time the various uses
(
proposed for the specific mapped SPAs constitute piecemealing of
environmental review of cumulative impacts1 but so, also, does the
failure of the DEIR to provide any meaningful discussion of the SPF
Mesquite Regional Landfill which is currently undergoing
environmental review and which is identified by name in the DEIR
(p.~II-l50), curiously under the section on Existing Conditions,'
and shown on the GP-LUE Fig.3, (p.24).
By deferring the EIR process as related to the already
apparently specifically planned SPAs, the DEIR impermissibly
narrows the "project" to exclude those isolated portions of the
general plan update project that may have lesser, although still "p3
potential for significant land use impacts" and thereby overlook
the CEQ~ Guidelines Sec. 15130(b) requirement for discussion of
cumulative impacts of the "whole of the action" of the proposed
project (General Plan Update) including "past, present. (3nd
reasonably anticipated future projects producing related cumulative
impacts. -. -
~n Qqup,ty~9J L (1977) 71 C.~. 3d
185, 193 (I~p ~I) explained that a thorough project description i*3
necessary because:
~ curtailed or distorted project description may stultify
the objectives of the reporting process. Only through an
348 accurate view of the project may affected outsiders and
public decision-makers balance the proposal's benefit
against its environmental cost. consider mitigation
measures, assess the advantage of terminating the
proposal (i.e., the "no project" alternative) and weigh
other alternatives in the balance. (Id. at 193.)
By not fully discussing the proposed Specific Plan areas and
the proposed regionaL landfills mentioned in DEIR p. Ill-ISO, the
DEIR project description omits information that is essential to an
349 adequate evaluation of project related environmental and cumulative
impacts. Further, the project description is inadequate in
addition to being incomplete.
F additionally, the DEIR fails to explain how preparation of an
3501 EIR for a SPF would "mitigate the potential impact below a level of
~i~nificance' as asserted in DEIR (S-2).
INFORMATION MISSING FROM DEIR RESULTS IN IN~CCUR~TE ~ND
IN~DEQU~TE PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Specific information missing from the DEIR includes, but is
not limited to the following:
351 Sources of information are missing from almost all maps and
figures. Because of this omission, information cannot be verified.
DEIR. Imperial County General Plan 24
PAGE 133 Show Image
8EC~USE COMMUNITY ~RE~ PLANS ~ND MIPS ~ND URBAN ~RE~ PLANS ~ND
MIPS ~RE MISSING FROM LEND USE ELEMENT, LEND USE ELEMENT IS
INCOMPLETE. RESULT IS INCOMPLETE DEIR PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1. GP-LUE states that: ~ppendi~ ~ contains more detailed
descriptions and maps of the 12 Urban area Plans which are adopted
concurrently herewith as a part of this General Plan Land Use
Element, and supercede the previously adopted Current land Use
Plans. (GPLUE, p.3.) Similarly, GP-LUE states that: *`~ppendix ~
contains a detailed description and maps of these Community area
Plans which are adopted concurrently herewith as part of this Land
Use Element, and supercede the previously adopted Current Land Use
Plans. (GP-LUE, p.6.) However, no such information is contained
in appendix ~ as distributed with the draft General Plan Update.
352 ~ppen~dix ~ in the copy received contains only a list of
organizations and persons consulted. There is no other appendix
included nor is there any detailed description of either the 12
Urban area Plans or three Community area Plans or maps for such
included anywhere in the GP-LUE. The omission of the referenced 12
Urban area Plans and the 3 Community area Plans and maps also
represent an intra-ele[nent inconsistency and an area plan
inconsistency. without theses missing area Plans and maps, the
General Plan is an incomplete document and presents an incomplete
project description for CEQ~ review.
This is an important omission beca~~se the rest Shores/Salton
City Urban `~rea Plan encompasses 31.340 acres (GP-LUE, p.6) and the
~co7t)illo/Nomira~e Community area Plan covers 108,000 acres (GP-LUE.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION FAILS TO IDENTIFY LENDS NOT SUBJECT TO
COUNTY PL£~NNING AUTHORITY
2. approximately 50% of County lands .3re largely undeveloped and
under federal ownership. (DEIR, Ill-I.) ~ll maps/figures ignore
patterns of land ownership showing federal (including military),
state. county, Indian Reservations and private lands. This is
crucial because the Imperial County land use planning authorization
and jurisdiction extends only to private lands within the County.
Public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management fall under
the planning and management responsibility of BLM. This map
353 information is readily available in the form of three large maps
called Desert access Guides (DIGs): Salton Sea (DIG 20), Midway
\4.ell (DIG 21). and Imperial valley South (DIG 22). These DIGs show
the pattern of land ownership and leaves the reader with a clear
understanding of which lands within Imperial County are subject to
BLM planning and management. The County GP should do no less.
DIGs are several years old and current patterns of land ownership
can be updated at the County assessors Office.
3. Correct locations of lands used for military activities is
1missing. ~ll figures incorrectly locate military withdrawn lands.
DEIR, Imperial County General elan 25
PAGE 134 Show Image
They are correctly located on BLM DIGs, consistent wish the changes
made in the BLM 1985 Plan amendment. Maps were redrawn following
the cooperative agreement between the Navy and BLM that was part of
the 1985 Plan amendment process. although the BLM California
Desert Conservation area Plan (CDC~ Plan) was adopted in 1980,
354 there have been numerous corrections, refinements, and boundary
changes for areas of Critical Environmental Concern (~CEC) to
accommodate the BLM management mandates. The preparers of the GP
and the DEIR apparently failed to review the numerous plan
amendments that affected BLM lands in Imperial County.
4. BLM is the manager of the vast majority of land in the East
Mesa which includes several areas of Critical Environmental Concern
(~C~Cs), which are managed for r~THL habitat among other issues.
355 Consequently lands in the East Mesa are not available for large
scale expansion of irrigated agriculture. Discussion of BLM
policies and land use designations on BLM managed lands are missing
from the DEIR.
5. BLM ~CEC~ are incorrectly located or of a reduced size and
have not been updated to include redrawn boundaries and new ~CEC3
356 within Imperial County based on BLM Plan amendments subsequent to
t;he CDC~ 1980 Plan. Plan amendments and maps are available for
review at the BLM office in El Centro.
Missing is any mention of the location of BLM owned lands
3S7L~ithin the square identified as felicity SPA. See BLM D~G 21.
r7,P roject description fails to identify the location of the .~ort
Yuma Indian Reservation which extends from the Colorado River to
3581 the border of the proposed Felicity ~ and which surrounds the
communities of Bard and Winterhaven. Likewise Bard is not located
on various figures/maps.
8. The project description and associated figures ignore the
checkerboard pattern of public V, private ownership in the area
359 designated as Hot Mineral Spa/Bombay Beach on the East side of
Salton Sea in an area designated for Rural Residential (Land Use
Category ~6 (LUC p6)). Only about 50 % of the land is privately
owned. (See BLM D~G 21)
9. Missing are figures that show the extremely small percentage
of lands within the Ocotillo/Nomirage Community area which are
privately owned. Estimates are 10 to. 20% private ownership in that
360 area, depending on the boundaries. (See BLM D~G 22.) The
Ocotillo/Nomirage Community area Plan 3/10/93 text (without map)
supplied by Stepner of the Consultant's firm, indicates 13.9% of
the proposed Community area is in private ownership.
L0 The rest Shores/Salton City Urban area ignores the Torres
361 Martinez Indian Reservation pith its apQroximately eight Sections
checkerboarded with portions of Desert Shores, and west and
DEIR Imperial County General elan 26
PAGE 135 Show Image
southwest of Salton Sea Beach, but included as urban area on the
~ proposed County Plan. The Torres Martinez reservation seems to
Lave been ignored both in text and maps. (See BLM D~G 20)
Fli. The project description contains no topographic ma~ of
362LmPeri al County as recommended by CEQ~ Guidelines Sec. 15124 (a).
DEIR CONT.~INS ~N IN~DE~U~TE DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
ENvIRONMENTAL SETTING
To be used 35 a `reference guide for the preparation of
environmental documentation for future projects' (DEIR. ~-2) the i~
shou].d be based on current data, reports, and reflect the current
363 available planning and management information reflecting mandated
programs on adjoining federal and state lands. Reliance on an
outdated (1985) overview and outdated USGS (1977) study while
ignoring current monitoring data is not adequate.
Discussion o~ the proposed General Plan asserts that included
in the General Plan is a Land Use Map (DEIR ~I~l). The bound GP
384 circulated ~or public review contains no such map, nor does it
include the title for such a map in the list of figures. ~hy was
the GP submitted ~or public review without the mandatory Land Use
lap? The Draft General Plan is further deficient because all 12
Urban ~~rea Plan descriptions and maps and Community ~~rea
descriptions and maps which were to have been included in ~ppendix
3651 ~ are missing. Consequently the Land Use Element is internally
Lefective and inconsistent.
The Housing Element adopted by the Board of Supervisors
10/23/90 (DEIR, 111) was not accepted by the State and therefore
remains as an unapproved backward-looking element, almost obsolete
document (with its time frame of 1989-1994). Because it is so out-
366 dated, and has not been cross-referenc'd by other elements it is
not likely that a General Plan adopted without an updated Housing
Element will be able t~ meet the state requirements for consistency
betweer. the elements and the data that form a framework for the
plan
The first page of the DEIR project description of the proposed
general plan asserts that the Housing Element is not being amended
with this General Plan. (DEIR, 11-1). ~hy then in the same
367 project description of the General Plan does the final sentence
state that: The proposed General Plan Update has reformatted that
previously adopted Element"? (DEIR, 11-13.)
P also critical to the adequacy of the DEIR is the necessity to
have a complete and accurate description of the project setting
prior to the analysis of impacts or effects of the proposed action.
DEIR Imperial County General Plan 27
PAGE 136 Show Image
~n EIR must include a description of the environment in
the vicinity of the project, from both a local and a y
regional perspective
368 (c) there a proposed project is compared ~ an adopted
plan, the analyses shall examine the existing physical
conditions and well as the potential fu:ure conditions
discussed in the plan. (CEQ~ Guidelines Sec. 15125)
If the impacts analyses are based on inacc~rate incomplete,
or out-dat8d project setting information, t~e resulting impacts
analyses cannot be accurate. CEQ~ Guide1i~es Jiscussion following
Sec. 15125 emphasizes the importance of an adequate discussion of
the existing environmental setting
Because the concept of a significant effect on the
environment focuses on changes in the environment, this
section requires an FIR to describe the environmental
etting of the project so that the changes can be seen in
contest. The description of the pre-existine environment
also helQs reviewers to check t~e Lead agency
identification of significant effeczs. ~ number of
aqencies have been required to spena' large amounts of
public funds to develop regional ~iafls as ~ ~ay o~
dealing pith large-scale environmen~a1 prcole'ns involving
air ;~nd eater pollution, solid waste, and :ranspcr~ation.
369 Subs~ction (c) reflects the decision i~ ~nvironmenta1
I.D.formation and Planning Council v. Oour~~~qf ~1 Dorado
(`1980) ~ O..~. ~d 350, which hela teat n comparing an
old general plan with a new county gereral plan that
L~ould allow less growth than the ol~ plan. the ~ had to
address the existing level of actual physicaL development
in the county as the base line for ccmoa~iscn. The two
pl(3n5 could no~ be compared ~it~ each o&.~er without
showing out how they would relate 0 ~he ex~st~.~g level
of development. (CEQ~ Guideli:~es Sec. 15125,
discussion.
*~n adequate discussion of existing env~rcnmental physical
conditions is essential to form the bases 0- a :rcgram DE:R for the
a General Plan as required by courts and ~y :-~~ Guidelines Sec.
15168.
among the deficiencies in the envirznmental setting of the
project, the proposed General Plan U~da:e, ar~ _`~e followinq
including but not limited to:
I. D~IR CCNT~INS IN~DE~U~T~ ~ND IN~Cc?~~-: iScJSS:oN/~~P PING OF
BIOLOGICAL RESCURC~S
370 Biological infonmation container i. ne ~-~R 5 ~ and
often misleading for the purposes 0 wnic -, `5 being used.
erroneous maoping of locations of vegezath Dn -escurz~s habi tat
D~IR, Imperial County General Plan `25
PAGE 137 Show Image
types can lead to incorrect assumptions about rainfall and,
accordingly, recharge to groundwater basins. Incorrect mapping of
sensitive biological resources including areas managed by BLM as
habitat for species listed as threatened or endangered or soon to
be listed species will result in conflicts with federal management
plans and maps and create confusion ror members of the public and
decision-makers attempting to use the Program ~IR in conjunction
370 with future proposed projects.
More accurate figures/maps of biological resources based on
studies and federal management plans are required to determine the
true impacts of the project on these resources and to form a basis
for modifying land uses and locations for var'ous types of
development so that such impacts will be ~liminated or reduced.
Because the DEIR failed to review the various BLM .~CEC
Management Plans and wildlife Habitat Management Plans, and the
Plan ~rnendments adopted by BLM since the adoption of the 1980 BLM
California Desert Conservation area Plan (CDC~ Plan), and because
371 the persons preparing the maps were unfamiliar with the vegetation
of the deser-t region, there are numerous mapping errors and
erroneous assumptions about BLM management policies in itS ~CECs.
In some cases mapping changes will be offered, in others, the
preparers o~ the DEIR are directed to i;he ~ppropriate BLM documents
to make the required corrections.
~ Plants and Vegetative habitats
372 J~ hat are the sources of the information used in preparing Fig.
Il0.DEIR Habitat Map? Reference ~hould be added to table 13 for
~istin~ of sensitive species of plants in Imperial County.
There are several important mapping errors. DEIR Fig. 10
Habitat Map t'DEIR, 111-34) and the identical $~P C/OS~ Habitat Map'
(P~P-C/OSE ~ig. 1, p.C/OSE-5) indicate a large area o~ `Pinyon-
Juniper & Mixed Chaparral" which covers the entire area for the
Jacumba Mts. and Coyote Mts. and extends onto the alluvial fan
east of Ocotillo and Coyote !~ells ~o elevations of ~0Q-400 ft. with
its approximately 3 inches of rainfall/year. rlunz (1974, p. 4)
states that pinyon-juniper woodland "occurs commonly at 5000-8000
ft., receives 12-20 inches of precipitation, with same snow." Such
a mapping error for the watershed area for the Ocotillo-Coyote
373 sells groundwater basin suggests a much higher recharge rate than
actually exists and would overestimate the ~roundwater resources
available for development in that groundwater basin.
This mapping error is inconsistent with the text (GP-p.6-7 and
DEIR, 111-88) which states that the "mixec chaparral and pinyon-
juniper habitats are restricted to a small area., overlapping area
in the extreme southwestern corner of Imperial County, in the
Jacumba Mountains adjacent to the San Diego Ooun~y line. Such an
inconsistency between text and diagram violates the consistency
I requirements of legislative policy expressea in (;ovt. Code Sec.
DEIR, Imperial County Oeneral Plan 29
PAGE 138 Show Image
65300.5 as explained in OPR General Plan Guidelines (OPR, p. 13)
Levin (1993) concurs that DEIR, Fig. 10 habitat mapping in S~
Imperial county is in error and has provided corrections. (See
attached map.)
b. ~Jildlife
Reference should be made to Table 14 for listing of sensitive
wildlife in Imperial County.
~hy is there such a discrepancy in the numbers of birds
374 species found within Imperial Counby'? DEIR (111-90) indicates 279
species of birds, DEIR (111-120) says over 350 species, GP-C/OSE
(p.8) reports 203 species, and the Salton Sea National Wildlife
Refuse brochure (1988) includes 371 species 0 birds. Why shouldn't
the DEIR preparers at least try to be consistent when presenting
numerical information?
c. Sensitive Species and Habitats
M~P OF SENSITIVE SPECIES *~ND H~8IT~TS CONTAINS ERRORS
There are `several mapping errors on F io. 11 "Sensitive Plants,
Wildlife ~~reas and Unusual Plant. ~ssernblacjes (DEIR, 111-93). GP
and DEIR maps locating and naming sensitive planta, wildlife areas,
375 and unusual plant assemblages (GP-C/OSE, Fig 2, C/OSE p. 10) and
(DEIR, Fig 11, 111-93) correctly locate one stand of crucifixion
thorns. but fails to locate t;he tL~o i~rcier stands of cruciTixion
thorns in SW Imperial County, one. in the Yuha desert and the other
in Skull Valley. (See attached map.)
In addition to the areas along the Colorado River designated
as Unusual Plant assemblages of Mesquite Hummocks, there are `3
large number of mesquite hummocks near the San Sebasitan Marsh/San
376 Felipe Creek ~CEC, in Pinto Wash, and a number of large mesquite
hummocks in the Yuha Badlands. These `3.dditional areas o~ mesquite
hummocks represent important wildlife habitat in the areas where
they occur.
In addition to any California fan palms which may occur at
sites around the Salton Sea (DEIR, 111-87), there are several palm
oases in Pinto Canyon and Mountain Springs, in the Jacumba
Mountains Natural Outstanding ~rea (Harmon, 1993) and probably in
377 other desert mountain canyons as well. Such palm oases in the
mountain canyons represent relict flora. Rather than being a
dominant species in desert succulent shrub in Imperial County, the
presence of saguaro is extremely localized in the eastern mountain
areas near the Colorado River (Levin, 1993).
Levin (1993) also noted that on DEIR Fig.ll and GP-C/OSF
Fig.2, Orocopia Sage, a sensitive plant species, 5 incorrec:ly
located near the eastern shore of the Salton Sea, when in reality
378 it exists in a canyon near Sheepherder's Canyon in the Chocolate
Mts. Both Levin and the text in tlunz (1974, p.538) indicate both
Fig. 11 and the listed locale in T.:~bie 13 a~e in error The locale
DEIR, Imperial Ccunt;y general Plan 30
PAGE 139 Show Image
miscopied information from Munz, which lists the Orocopia Mts in
31 Riverside County and makes no reference to a Orocopia canyon in the
Lhocol ate Mts.
Levin (1993) further commented that the mapping of biological
resources includes not only current data but also historical data.
He noted that there should be a clear differentiation of current
information for planning purposes. For example, when D~IR Fig ~
(showing existing agricultural lands) is compared with Fig. 11
(depicting ranges of sensitive species) it will be obvious that
379 there are some mapping errors. These errors are best shown on D~1R
Fig. 15 biological Sensitivity Map. ~ review of BLM"s Habitat
Management Plans for the Yuha Basin .~CEC and East Mesa ~CEC should
be co~nvincing that ~lat-t3iled horned lizards are not to be ~ound
in the midst of cultivated agricultural lands as is shown on either
*-~ide of the areas of irrigated agriculture.
These maps of wildlife areas ignore the location of the BLM
Chuckwalla Desert Tortoise Habitat Management Plan' map which
includes the area east of the Southern Pacific railroad to the east
380 of the dunes to the eastern boundary of the SLM California Desert
Conservation area (CDC~) and south to the ~ll american Canal, and
N to an area east of Calipatria between the railroad and the
gunnery range. (See ;\..tt~ched map.)
~mphibians and Reptiles
~hy isn't the desert tortoise, which is alred-dy listed as
3811 threatened by both USFWS and CDFG, given as much discussion as the
Liat-tailed horned lizard which is not yet listed?
The discussion of flat tailed horned lizard declines in GP-
C/OSE (p;11) lists impacts in addition to those listed in the DEIR
and more accurately reflects information in 8LM .~CEC' management
Qians. Those additional impacts listed in the (~P-OSE include
382 habitat modification and destruction from recreational
developments, `such as off-highway vehicle activity, geothermal
development, gold mining, construction of roads and power
transmission lines, sand and gravel extraction, pesticide spraying,
and habitat fragmentation. (GP-C/OSE, p.11.)
Mammals
~ll species of bats listed as Category 2 candidates for
federal listing (GP-C/OSE, p. 12 and DEIR, 111-108) are entirely
insectivorous, with two species feeding only on insects in flight.
(harbour and Davis, 1969, p. 30, 161, 168, 222-223.) The
sensitivity of bats to pesticides has been well documented in
numerous publications in recent decades. Because bats forage in
the evening, throughout the night and dawn hours, they are
particularly vulnerable in Imperial County because of the night
time aerial application of agricultural chemicals. Consequently,
although agricultural areas may be considered as providing foraging
habitat for bats, the nighttime application of ~gricultural
DEIR, Imperial County General Plan 31
PAGE 140 Show Image
chemicals represent a major threat to any bats feeding in he
(
icinity. Indeed, there was earlier a documented incident of a bat
383 dvie~off
in Imperial County, apparently related to the spraying of
agricultural chemicals during the summer of 1976. (Harmon, 1993.)
It is recommended that the DEIR prepare a set of maps (similar
to those ~or DEIR ~igs,.l2,l3) depicting the historic and present
ranges of the desert tortoise for which a habitat management plan
6'OA ~s currently being prepared by BLM. additional information on the
~ biology of the desert tortoise and conditions that have lead to its
decline are noted by Steinhart (1990, p.89). ~ map of the
Chuckwalla desert tortoise habitat management area proposed by ~M
and discussed at its January 1993 scoping meetings is included.
P- *On Fig.12, it should be noted that the ~lgodones Dunes are not
385L~untains as indicated by the map legend.
d. RESOURCE ~RE~S M~P INCORRECTLY LOCATES MANY RESOURCE .~RE~S
The discussion of the Resource areas is too vague to be of
value in determining the potential impacts of the proposed changes
386 in land use designations. Particularly important is the failure of
~he DEIR to provide any meaningful detail for ~ny of ~he ~LM ~CECs
most o~ which have site specific plans which discuss the existing
onditions within the ~CEC.
Because of mapping errors or unexp1aine~ differences oet'~jeen t
the locations of resou.~ces on the map and the ohvsioal location
the resource on the ground. it appears that resource documents
elied on were out-dated, information was incorrectly transferred
387 frrom one map to another, or both. The numerous BLM elan ~mendment.s
3lnce 1980 must be carefully reviewed for changes in ~CE'
boundaries and addition of new ~CECs in addition to changes in ~LPi
ma~nagement policies such ~s the agricultural policy.
Fig. 14 (DEIR 111-15) fails to identify the source or sources
oi: information used in its preparation. There are errors based
in part. on the failure to consult BLM Plan amendments. DE:R Fig.
14 fails to locate the following .~CECs: Imperial Dunes ~CEC, Pilot
Knob ~CEC. rest Mesa ~CEC, and Coyote mt. ~CEC. Of special
reference are the BLM E~ (1989) to expand the Coyote Mt. ~CEC
388 (decision pending); and the already adopted Plan amendments
including BLM ROD (1978) to expand the boundaries of the Yuha Basin
~CEC to its present size of 64,462 acres; 6LM ROD (1987) to change
boundaries of Gold Basin/Rand Intaglios ~CEC; and BLM ROD (1988)
creation of new ~est Mesa ~CEC north of Navy .~ithdrawn lands.
These documents are all available ~or public review at the BLPI El
Centro Resource area office.
~iso missing from the Resource area map is any designation for
3891 the Chuckwalla desert tortoise habitat management area proposal
Lnder current preparation by BLPI.
LThEIR. ImQerial County General Plan 32
PAGE 141 Show Image
F The three `Imperial \4ildlife areas do not match the
boundaries or locations designated for such on BLM D~G 20.
L
These mapping errors are important because they sill define a
broader range of conflicts between the proposed General Plan Update
land use designations and their permitted uses and the adopted
management Plans ~or the adjoininQ or surrounding BLM ~C~Cs and
Wildlife Habitat Management areas. The expansion of the Yuha Basin
391 ~CEC and the potential listing of the Category I species for which
this is optimal habitat `~ould have a profound impact on future
development proposals within or adjacent to (DEIR, 111-107) this
~CEC. The expansion of the ~CEC boundaries means that more than
sour square miles of private lands are no~ surrounded by or
adjacent to the Yuha Basin r~CEC.
The DEIR failure to discuss the BLM ~CECs in any ;~eaningful
~ay results in the inade'~uate discussion of the e~isting conditions
for the environmental setting adjacent to and surrounding scores o~
square miles of private inholdings within or adjacent to these
~CECs. Different. ~CEOs have different management mandates
392 depending on the reasons for 3ach ~CEC designation. The BLM CDC~
Plan (1980 at p. 124)alzo has requirements for monitoring the
conditions of the *~CECs. and BLM's concerns about the uses on these
inholdings L'Jas addressed ~n the L980 Plan and in ~CEC and Wildlife
Habitat Man~3gement Pt.3ns~such as the East Mesa WHMP (1983, p.5).
C. Plans/Policies
Imperial County General Plan
DEIR (111-121) states that the 1973 Plan preservation
designation has been deleted from ~1l,514 acres and redesignated as
Recreation/Open Space. HoL~ever, the DEIR fails to ~:~~ddress ho~ much
of that land is prLvately owned and ho~ much of that land is
located adjacent to or surrounded by BLM ~CECs. The
Recreation/Open Space land use designation (OP-LUE, p.45-46) could
~uthori~e agricultural uses and intensive commercial
ecreation/high density residential uses on parcels over 160 acres
pith a Specific Plan. Such uses as noted earlier could be
incompatible pith BLM management plans and policies for the ~CECs.
F The DEIR. fails to adequately discuss the inconsistencies
3941be tree n the propased general plan update land use designations
( their development standards and authorized uses) and the existing
LdoPted BLM plans as required by CE~~ Guidelines Sec. 15125(b).
although DEIR 111-122 asserts that `a significant portion of
this acreage ~~ould be dedicated to the preservation of natural
resources's, there ~as no text or maps in either the DEIR or GP to
395indicate just there this acreage dedicated to preservation of
natural resources might be located. Nowhere in any element of the
GP ~ere there even any maps of the `.~atersheds for groundwater
basins upon which some oommuni~ies rely.
DEIR, Imperial Ooun~y General Plan 33
PAGE 142 Show Image
The D~IR lists the uses which are planned for this expanded
(3rea designated as Recreation/Open Space by noting that:
Recreational land uses within this category are limited
to recreational vehicle parks and uses which consist
primarily of outdoor facilities such as parks, athletic
fields, golf courses, swim and tennis clubs and off-road
vehicle use areas. Light to medium agricultural uses,
including row and find crops, orchards, a~uaculture,
grazing and apiaries, are also permitted in this
396 category. (D~IR, 111-122.)
Thus is provided a laundry list of uses which are clearly
incompatible with BL~1 mandates with respect to the ~C~Cs.
Furthermore to assert that ~residential development is allowed at
.3 maximum density of one single-family dwelling per 20 acres
(DEIR 111-122) is misleading, because GP-LUE (p.45-46) describes
the higher densities of use permissible with a Specific Plan on
parcels of 160 acres or larger. Indeed, where is there an RV park
with just one gamily per 20 acres?
The DEIR again makes the same flawed analysis as in the
*~~rlier discussion of land uses by comparing potential impacts of
development `Ander the proposed plan with the )mpacts a~ build-out
under the 1973 Plan. The fundamentally flawed analysis is clear
trom the following statement that:
Because ~ significantly larger amount of open space is
designated by the proposed elan, however, there i (
greater potential to preserve more acreage of biological
397 sensitivity in Imperial County than was available with
the previous Plan. (DEIR, 111-122.)
This statement is quite preposterous, given the much hioher
intensity and density of uses authorized under the proposed plan as
described in the GP, particularly in areas surrounded by or
ad5ac~nt to ~CECs. The old plan must be evaluated for its internal
consistency between maps and text. The imprecise language in the
(;P provides for little or no protection in sensitive areas. Nor
could .~.ny language to establish wildlife corridors o'e found.
The DEIR (111-122) states that `the proposed Plan will allow
the County and appropriate resource agencies to exert greater land
use controls over future projects in the "Recreation/Open Space
land use category for the purpose of protecting biological
resources." How can this possibly be when the GP and DEIR clearly
398ai~thorize agricultural uses within this land use designation?
Where is the text, goals, objectives, and implementation policies
and programs to support the assertion that biological resources
will receive greater protection by deleting the 1973 preservation'
designation and replacing it with the Recreation/Open Space
designation.?
F~h ere specifically in the GP-C/OSE were ` the various RC~s~'
3991i dentified and described? The language of the GP-C/OSE under
1"implementation programs, begins by stating `Identify Resource
D~IR. Imperial County General Plan 34
PAGE 143 Show Image
areas to conserve and enhance native vegetation and wildlife. (GP-
C/OSE, p.43.) That language belies the DEIR suggestion that any
399IRC~s contemplated under the implementation program are identified
and/os described in Lhe GP-C/OSE. Further, RC~ is not a term used
in the GP-C/OSE.
The objective in doing an environmental impacts analysis for
the general plan update is to examine the potential impacts on the
environment as it exists at present. (Environmental_Planni~nd
400 ~nformation Council v. Counyt~9I El Dorafflo (1982) 131 C.~. 3d 350,
p54; 182 C.R. 317.) The DEIR has failed to do this. HoLe sill this
error be corrected?
California Desert Conservation area Plan
¶he DEIR discussion of the importance of the CDC~ Plan and
DLM's management of ~CECs, ~ildlife Habitat Manaqement areas and
wilderness Study areas and the relationship of BLI's management
mandates to vast acreages ~~iithin Imperial County is inadequate. It
fails to address the issue of potential incompatible uses ~~ithin
the County Recreation/Open Space designation and the BLM ~CECs, and
the 8LM action programs for acquisition of private lands within
401 certain ~CECs in order to prevent incompatible uses of private
inholdings.
Under discussion of various .ianagement plans should be
included the on-going preparation of the desert tortoise habitat
management plan (BLM 1/93 scoping meetin(~) and the USF~S
I designation of Critical Habitat for the endangered desert pupfish
LLM SSM/SFC~ 1986, p.s).
DEIR DEFTCIENCIES IN DISCUSSION OF LEND USE ELEMENT INCLUDING
L.~ND DISTRIBUTION/P~TTFRNS OI~ PU~LIC/PRI7~T~ O~NER.SHIP
Patterns of federal, state, county, Indian and private lands
must be accurately identified on maps along pith descriptions of
the land uses existing or proposed for those different
jurisdictions. The wildlife Management Plans, Habitat Management
Plans areas of Critical Environmental Concern, and Recreation area
Management Plans already adopted by BLM in addition to those
Habitat Management Plans in the process of preparation should be
402 discussed there they apply to lands adjacent to or surrounding
private lands under County planning jurisdiction to ensure
compatible adjoining land uses within different jurisdictions. DEIR
fails to provide meaningful discussion of existing impacts on the
threatened desert tortoise for which 8LM is currently preparing a
Haoitat Management Plan. ~ list of the various applicable 8LM
management plans (available for review in the ~LM El Centro
Resource area Office) is appended.
DEIR Table I Land Use Distributions' is based on out-dated
p985 information which .~ill inevitably be inconsistent `pith the
DEIR, Imperial County General Plan 35
PAGE 144 Show Image
Table 2 Imperial County Population and Housing (1990)' for both
incorporated and some of the unincorporated communities. The
403 reliance on such out-dated information cannot provide an adequate
frame~~~ork for discussion of the "existing physical conditions"
required by CEQ~ Guidelines Sec. 15125 (c).
mere t:he provisions that: there be no conversion ot land frofn
~agricult:ural uses (pith certain exceptions) for a five year period
404~based on document:ed health, safety, and general welfare
Lovisions as per Govt. Code Sec. 65358? The criteria should be
explained.
The uses described for the industrial land use designation do
not *3ccurately reflect: those in the GP-LUE (p.45) `which may permit
405Ihazardous taste treatment and incineration ;~mong other taste
~eatment: and storage uses 3-t the Plaster (;it:y site. ~as this
intentional?
The GP-LUE recreation/Open Space authorized agriculture based
on t:he erroneolls assumption t:hat because areas in the East: and ~est:
Mesas and Pilot Knob contain soils suitable for agriculture (DEIR,
p. 11-8), therefore the federal jovemment could abandon its
adopted management policies and adopted management plans and
dispose of federal lands ror agriculture. Such is not: the case.
406
The GP-LUE (p.45) and DEIR 11-3 ~ustific~ation for permitting
agricultural uses ~jithin t:he Recreation/Open Space c~t:egory,
referencing the 8LM's East Mesa and \4est Mesa, is without merit and
conflict:s pith established 8LM management plans and policies and
L~ith adopted 8LM Plan amendment relat:ed to prohibition of oisposal
of lands for irrigat:ed agricult:ure (8LM, 1985; ROD, 1/37).
LM wildlife Habitat Management Plan for the East Mesa (1983)
Jcalls for "maintaining and enhancing wildlife habitat: and
4071 populations of species of special management: concern including the
Lat~tailed horned lizard, Yuma clapper rail, and California black
rail.
The 1985 8LM Plan amendment: ~2 (Record of Decision (ROD) 1/87,
p. 6-7) extended the prohibition of agriculture (other than
livestock grazing) to all 8LM lands in the California Desert except
on unclassified lands. The amendment stat:es:
-. .. The Federal Land Policy and management: ~ct of 1976
(FLPM~) sets north the principle that public lands are t:o
be retained in public ownership and managed for the
408 public good........
The Desert Plan, in its zoning system, intended that
retention lands which mere in mult:iple use classes could
be maintained in essential ~ildland character, except as
authorized under specific lease, permit or grant.
~gricultural use is not generally one of those kinds of
authorized ~1ses. Further, agricultural use contemplates
DEIR, Imperial County General Plan
PAGE 145 Show Image
C ~ i~n~~th~e
4ud ~ proposed ~
the within the
FTHL habitat management. among BLPI's east Mesa Wildlife Habitat
Management Plan (l98~) management planned actions' is a "land
409 exchange/acquisition program" which states that: "Land exchange is
necessary to prevent habitat loss and to prevent possible impacts
of pesticide use when inholdings are converted to agricultural
use. (east Mesa WHMP, l98~, p. 5.)
`Consequently, the DEIR (p.~I8) and GP-C/OSE (p.28) assertion
that the lands "3uitable ~or cultivation" in the East Mesa and West
Mesa (also FTHL habitat) represent potential irrigable lands
~which] present a valuable future resource which should be
410 protected" for potential future agriculture. The related GP-~E
Objective ~.9 and GP-~E Objective 1.12 supporting conversion o~
state and federal lands to irrigated agriculture ~re all
incomp(3tible with the pattern of federal ownership and BLM"~
proposed management actions for acquisition of private inholdings
to manage ~or FTHL habit.~t.
Based Dn BLM DIGs ~ and p22, almost the entir~~ East Mesa
area E/SE of Calipatria to the Mexican border is under BLM
management, with much of it being included in the East Mesa ~CEC
managed in part ~or protection of critical wildlife habitat~for the
flat-tailed horned lizard and cultural resources. Because of BLM's
adopted policies .3nd management plans, neither the East Mesa,
including the East Mesa ~CEC, nor the West Mesa. including the West
Mesa *~CEC are available for irrigated agriculture. Therefore th~
justification for permitting agriculture within the Recreation/Open
Space GP-LUE (p.45) is inconsistent with and incompatible with BLM
management responsibilities and should be deleted from the
authorized uses in the Recreation/Open Space land use category to
minimize expectations and minimize land use incompatibility with
411 the federal lands.
It may be true that: Some areas designated Recreation/Open
Space contain soils suitable for agriculture, such as the East Mesa
and West Mesa and Pilot Knob Units of Imperial Irrigation District,
which are predominantly owned by the Bureau of Land Management and
not improved for agricultural cropland." (DEIR, Il-B.) It may also
be true that: `Other areas are suitable for aquaculture" (DEIR, II-
8). However, because the preparers of the GP failed to review the
relevant BLM Plan ~mendrnents and/or to consult the BLM Habitat
Management Plans leads to an erroneous conclusion that:
"~gricul tural t.jses are, therefore, permitted in the Recreation/Open
space cateqory as long as they do not conflict with Bureau of Land
I Management `~reas of Critical Environmental Concern (DEIR, 11-B.).
DEIR, Imperial County General Plan 37
PAGE 146 Show Image
This policy would not be justified or supportable, because federal
(
lands are not available for development of irrigated agriculture
411 and many are planned for acquisition. Such inclusion of
agriculture as a permitted use in the Recreation/Open Space
category could lead to unwarranted expectations by the public.
The Statement that `residential development will be limited to
one dwelling unit per twenty acres unless further defined by a
specific Plan" (DEIR, 11-8) is misleading because it fails to
discuss the much higher densities contemplated on large parcels.
Furthermor~ residential standards authorizing "greater densities"
which "may be permitted by Specific Plan encompassing at least 160
acres for appropriate recreation oriented residential development"
412 (GP- _UF, p.46) is inconsistent with the stated minimum lot size of
~ single family dwelling per 20 acres and ignores any references to
the ~roundwater resource constraints related to L~atershed and
recharge area protection, potential groundwater contamination
resulting prom waste or holding tank disposal, and/or compatibility
with federal management criteria for habitat protection for
sensitive and Uisted species, particularly in the vicinity of an
~CFC.
Re ~gricultural Land Use Standards (GP-LUE, p.46), agriculture
.,hould be limi t~d lo those areas already designated ~or agriculture
in the ~gricul ture land use category. Because agriculture and its
.3ssoclated groundwater us.3ge is not compatible with 3L~ management
(
~ or sensitive ~nd listed wildlife species, agriculture should not
be permitted within the Recreation/Open Space land use category.
The DEIR Fig.4 does indicate an isolated agricultural operation to
the west of the San Sebastian Marsh/San ~elipe Creek area, so any
other e~isting agricultural operations should 3150 be so designated
on the Proposed Land Use Plan. Groundwater based commercial
413 agricultural operations should be prohibited throughout the
Recreation/Open Space land use category, including on private lands
within or adjacent to BLM ~CECs. Since BLM already prohibits
agricultur~ on BLM lands including lands in ~CECs, there is no need
to specifically prohibit those activities on federal lands over
which the County has no planning authority. However, such a
prohibition should apply to private lands adjacent to or surrounded
by 8Lt1 ~CECs. However, this is also assumed with the recommended
prohibition of commercial agriculture in the Recreation/Open Space
category.
The above discussion related to adopted federal management
criteria indicates that the preparers of the General Plan Update
and DEIR either were ignorant of existing adopted federal policies
and plan amendments or, in the alternative, those federal
414 management policies were ignored by the preparers in violation of
Govt. Code Secs. 65103(e)(f), 65351 and 65352 which require "local
governments to work not only with citizens, but also with other
governmental agencies and public utility companies in preparing and
implementing their general plans. (OPR, 67.)
DEIR. Imperial County General Plan 38
PAGE 147 Show Image
The imprecise use of language under discussion of agricultural
Land Use Standards in the Recreat;ion/Open Space land use cat;egory
(GP-LUE1 p.46) prohibiting agricult;ure ~in areas designated by BLM
as *~reas of Critical Environmental Concern' is meaningless
because BLM already prohibits agricult;ure in its ~CECs. BLM
management authorit;y extends only to federal lands and does not;
apply to the private lands adjacent to or surrounded by
415 (inholdings) BLM ~CECs. To be compat;ible wit;h BLM adopted
management policies, the County should prohibit agriculture on
privabe lands adjacent to or surrounded by BLM ~CECs and the
language used must be more precise t;o exclude any possible
misint;erpretations. .~ddit;ionally, the Count;y General Plan Update
must correctly draw the ~CEC boundaries to reflect BLM plan
~mendment;s. Only then will the ~ecreat;ion/Open Space t;e~t have any
meaning.
GP-LUE p.45-46 discussion of intensive commercial recreation
uses which could be permit;ted on privately owned parcels larger
than 160 acres fails to mention that; such uses would be
incompatible with BLM management; policies and actions related to
wildlife habitat management plans. This is particularly germane to
416 ~CECs with habit;at; management; for sensitive wildlife species
including t;hose already listed as endangered or t;hreatened or those
f:or which listing is ant;icipat;ed as a result; of t;he 12/92
settlement s~greement in The lund for animals v. Lyyan. ~lso of
concern related t;o commercial recr~a~ion ~re potential off-site
impacts on cultural resources in ~~CECs.
The need for compatibility of County authorized uses on
private lands should be addressed in GP-LUE land use categories
since it; is recognized in t;he GP-C/OSE discussion o~ Open Space.
GP-C/OSE (p. ?5) states that;: `The County has no regulatory
authorit;y over these lands rBLM l.3nds], and i~ cont;rolle(~
recreational use is permit;ted, it; will be subject to the management;
procedures imposed by the Bureau o~ Land Management;. To avoid
417 possible conflicting land uses which have t;he pot;ential for
significant off-site impacts on federal lands and to avoid
unwarranted development expectations of private landowners, the
DEIR ~or the General Plan Update must; more carefully consider what
uses will be compatible with BLM adopted mandates, be more precise
in its choice of language relat;ed t;o prohibit;ions, -and more
accurately map resource constraints and map patterns of
landownership.
BLM plans call for land exchange and acquisition of private
inholdings to prevent possible impacts of pesticide use when
private lands are converted to agriculture. (BLM, EM~HMP, 1983,
418 p.5) By contrast, the County General Plan Update and the DEIR (II-
8)anticipate just the opposite action on the part of the federal
government;. By sailing to review all the applicable BLM management
Plans and plan amendments, including the agricultural conversion
DEIR, Imperial County General Plan 29
PAGE 148 Show Image
L prohibition (BLM ROD, 1987) the County has proposed a land use (
418 designation which is incompatible with the federal managemenb
policies throughout much of the desert.
~The discussion of residential development standard permitting
Ii dwelling unit per ZO acres (DEIR, lI-B) is misleading. The GP-
4191 LUE (p.46) test would authorize high density intensive recreational
`:Lsidential development on parcels of 160 acres or larder, with
structures confined to not more than 50% of the lot.
The Recreation/Open Space Residential Development ~~tandards
(GP-LUE, p.46) contains an internal contradiction that would allow
for the intensive urban type of use which would resul; in what
would ot;herwise be considered premature or improper conversion of
open space that the GP-C/OSE seeks to avoid. The low density
residential use of a small parcel but high density residential
development of parcels 160 acres or larger presents a profound
inconsistency when one recalls that the Urban area Plan ~or the
`city of Winterhaven covers only seventy (70) acres (GP-LUE, p.6)
and one notes t;hat the vast ma3ority of private lands included in
the Recreation/Open Space land use Category are isolated sections
3cattered throughout publicly owned lands managed by 8LM. There is
no map showing the land use categories for the Proposed Land Use
Plan in the Draft General Plan Update, however, the DFI,9 doe.':'
include such a map 35 Fio. 4 (DEIR, p~lI1-~~).
I
420 If ~interhaven with its 70 acres of privare l.~nds is to be
considered an Urban ~ why wouldn't the intensle, high density
recreational vehicle park and mobile home parks anticipated by the
discussion of the Recreation/Open Spice land uses and residential
development standards allow for the developers' an~icipared hop-
ocotch recreation/urban areas with minimu(n 30 aces s~~e throughout
the desert? Surely this is the logical interprerarion of
development potential if 50% of the 160 acre minimum parcel size
for intensive residential recreation use is contemplated with .3
Specific Plan! Clearly the Residential development otandards of
the Recreation/Open Space land use category (GP-LU~, p.46) are
inconsistent with the discussion of the Recreation/Open Space lands
as being `characterized by a low intensity of human u;ilization"
DEIR (p. 11-8) and its mapped location on Fig.4 of the C)~IR and
incompatible with adopted (3LM management plans and policies for the
surrounding public lands.
The DEIR notes that land within the Specific Plan .~rea (SPa)
designation `usually has environmental constraints' and that:
`Suitable areas also include lands proposed for large-scale urban
development, natural resource oro;ection his to nc
421 pr..ese..£yat;..;'..q~,...' (DEIR, 11-9, emphasis aided.) ~here are the
lands that are proposed for natural resource protection or historic
preservation? How can such lands meet four of the five criteria
listed on GP-LUE, p.9 for approval?
HEIR, Imperial County General Plan 40
PAGE 149 Show Image
DEIR PROJECT DESCRIPTION OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT IS IN~DEQU~TE
~ND MISLEADING: 10/90 HOUSING ELEMENT w~S NOT ADOPTED BY STATE
F It seems t;hat the Count;y can't decide what; to do about; the
4221 Housing Element with its 1989-1994 time frame. On DEI~ p.11-13 it
is suggest;ed that t;he Housing Element was t;o have been included,
~nd indeed, it was in a December 199w draft.
Missing from t;he DET~ is information about the exist;ing
populations and av;;ilable housing units in the unincorporated
comm~iiities of Palo Verde, Bombay Beach, Hot Mineral Spa, Salt;on
Se? Beach Desert Shores. There is no discussion of the
423 notic~able increase in populat;ion du~ng winter months (DEIR,
111-3) cit;ed for t;hese communit;ies and t;he Ocot;illo/Nomirage area.
The tesult; is t;he DEIR never provides discussion of the impacts
resuit;ing form seasonal *~nd very substantial changes in population
on the environment; or on t;he various oomponent;s of infrast;ructure.
DEIR PROJECT DESCRIPTION OF ~~TER ELEMENT INCLUDING
(1.ROUND~~TER RESOURCES IS IN~DEQU~TE
~. although t;he L~~~ter Element provides much information about
Imperial Trig~t;ion Dist;rict (lID) and it;s operations and current;
programs, it; is deficient; in all other espec~s. The GP-~E summary
.~nd indeed. t;he CAP-WE it;self are woefully inadequat;.9 and basically
useless in its discussion of groundwater resources, recharge areas.
or even 3ny water districts other than lID. Furthermore, the goai~,
objectives, and im~lement;at~on policies and programs are often not
424 consistent with those in the GP-C/OSE and/or fail to address
issues, including water related objectives, discussed in other
el3ments. Serious consideration should be given to deleting this
element; and incorporating relevant portions in the GP-C/OSE 3nd GP-
~E. The C~P-'~E relies on out-dated information, provides no saps
locat;in~ aspects of t;he water transport infrastructure or
groundwater basins *.~nd their recharge 3reas.
2. The communit;ies of Palo Verde, Bombay Beach, Hot Mineral Spa,
Sd lton City/rest Shores area, Ocotillo/Nomirage area. 3ard and
~interhaven depend on groundwater for domestic purposes. without
information about; the existing communities and the present; demands
425 on groundwater resources, and t;he seasonal fluctuations in those
demands, it is not possible t;o adequately discuss resource
constraints and/or environmental impacts or effects resulting from
the proposed project;.
3. Because the communities on both sides of the Salton Sea depend
on groundwater pumped from deep wells in Riverside County, the
project setting must include the existing conditions ot that;
426 groundwater resource so the impacts of projected growth in these
communities can be addressed in relation to impacts on the
groundwater basin Ln Riverside County and compat;ibillt;y of t;he
DEIR, Imperial County General Plan 41
PAGE 150 Show Image
proposed General Plan Update with the Riverside County (
4261 Comprehensive General Plan and potential groundwater resource
\-cons traints
4. Groundwater resources associated with seepage from the
Colorado River for communities located in close proximity to the
427 Colorado River are not adequately addressed, nor are the potential
problems of leachata contamination from septic systems during
periods of high water table.
5. Discussion of groundwater resources in the ocotillo-Coyote
t~ells Basin which supplies the U.S. Gypsum Corp., communities of
Oco~illo and Nomirage and other scattered private parcels in SW
Imper;ial County is based on out-dated information. Groundwater
resoijrce constraints should be based in part on the underlying
geological formations and on information gained from semi-annual
428 moniorino of water levels and `eater quality by USGS, the agency
which did the original study. Current information is needed to
modify land uses and locations and density of development to reduce
or eliminate t4~e threats of groundwater contamination esulting
fom continued concentr.3tion of pumping in areas with lar'~e cones
Cf depression. (Refer to ~arlier discussion.)
t). For all groundwater basins with existing and/or proposed
~~evelopment, n:~p5 0: watersheds and locations of other wells
particularly t.ho~(? `~ells 5eF.vlng other than individual residences' (
*£hould be identified together with discussion of the locations ~nd
Fxtent of existing cones of depression and well interference,
locations of known poor quality groundwater and changing water
42b3 quality in monitoring wells. The complete and accufate description
of the existing groundwater issues facing each groundwater
dependent community will vary with geographic setting, but a more
detailed descriplion of the existing *pre-~xisting environment
must. form the basis for land use planning decisions based on the
c.3rrying capaci ties of each groundwater resource.
7. DEIR Fig. 14 Resources areas (p. 111-115) shows San Sebastian
Marsh/San Felipe ~C~C and San Sebastian Marsh SN~ and Fig. 10
Habitat Map (111-35 indicate as sensitive desert Riparian
downgradient and to the east of areas shown on Fig. 4 (proposed
Land Use Plan) designated for agriculture and recreation/open space
which would authorize agriculture or intensive commercial
recreational uses. D~IR provides inadequate discussion of how the
430 proposed use designations could avoid exacerbating the existing and
potential impacts of declining water levels and chemical use on
riparian habitat vegetation and habitat for the desert pupfish.
D~IR also fails to mention that all projects potentially impacting
water in San Felipe Creek need to comply with the ~ because or
the presence of the endangered desert pupfish and its Critical
Habitat (Watkins, l~9~).
DEIR fails to include any discussion of water resources for
DEIR, Imperial County C~eneral Pl.~n 42
PAGE 151 Show Image
PAGE 152 Show Image
L inadequacies of the DEIR project description ~or this element are
437 similar to ~he discussion of the GP-LUE related to agricultural
uses -
~~The DEIR project description of the Conservation/Open Space
438 lElement (GP-C/OSE) is so superficial as to be in3dequate as a
~~mpone nt of the proposed project, General Plan Update.
The summary of the Geothermal and Transmission Element (GP-GE)
4391 provides no useful information relevant to the DEIR's proposed
project description.
9~DE IR contains inadequate discussion of the regional air
quality situation at present. Regional air quality environment
shourd of necessity include the situation in the city of Mexicali
immediately across the international border. Existing air quality
conditions that shotild be 3ddres5ed include but are not limited to
the following: transportation impacts, fugitive dust prom unpaved
roads and plowed fields fugitive dust from off-highway vehicular
440 recreation, agricultur31 burning, aerial spraying of agricultural
chemicals industrial uses, manuf.3c turing and ~OL~C r gene ration,
fugitive dust and chemicals associated `.~ith cy.~nide heap-leach
mining, ~ugit.ive dust associated ~ii;h sand and gravel and other
mining operations, volatile prom duel and chemical z~torage areas,
feedlots, military operations, inversions, high rinds, lo~
ra i. nfal 11 and u rb(an impac t3 f mm Mexica 1 i ~ 0 thEe r tJ rban areas a
greater distance.
[77 DE IR fails to provide meaningful dIscussion of existing
4411 impacts on the threatened desert tortoise ~or `.~hich ~LM is
Lj~rently preparing a Habitat Management ~
Fm DEIR discussion problems related to rind and eater erosion of
4421 fragile desert soils is inadequate and inconsistent, particularly
`½th reference to impacts related to ORV use and mining activities.
12. DEIR fails to include 3 discussion of ~he existing setting in
addition to sailing to do an environmental assessment of the
existing impacts created by mining and sand and gravel operations
443 on air quality, surface and groundL~ater impacts because the off-
site impacts may have secondary impacts on regional air quality and
groundwater qLlali ty/quanti ty which affect the groundwater resource.
l~. DEIR discussion is inadequate L~Ith resQect to existing and
suture impacts of ORV activity on air quality, noise, water
quality, rainwater run-off and infiltration. The impacts on public
444 or private lands may result from increased development related to
activities on private lands in the Recreation/Open Space
designation -
\1. DEIR fails to explain where in the Ccunty such mitigation
445 n~easures such as clearing o~ vegetation for ire control and `afire
DEIR. Imperial County C~ener3l Plan 44
PAGE 153 Show Image
clearing' are being used and what "understory cover
4.~I requires special protection. (re DEIR, 111-132.) This reference
L-su~~ests a misunderstanding of the local environmental setting.
15. LAJithout additional detailed and current information about the
regional and existing environment it is not possible to adequately
determine the extent of the project impacts. Indeed1
~ good faith effort to comply `~`~ith a statute resulting in
the production of information is not the same, hoL~ever,
446 as an absolute failure to comply resulting in the
qmyss ion of relevant information. [emphasis in original]
(Rural LandoL~ners ~ssn. V. Lit~y_Council (1983) 1~3 C.H.
~d 1013, l0~~ [192 CR. 325].) (Mountain Lion Coalitto q
*y.~Fjsh and ~ (1989) 214 C.~. 3d 1043, 1052; 263 C.R.
104.)
DEIR FAILS TO .~DE~U~TELY ~N~LYZF- ~RE~S OF CONTROVERSY RELATED
TO GENERAL PLAN UPDATE IMPACTS
CEQ~ Guidelines Sec. 15151 states that: "en EIR should be
prepared pith -~ 5ufficient degree of analysis to provide decision-
makers L~ith information which enables them to make a decision which
i r~ tell igen t ly takes `account; 0 ~ the environmental consequences.
The FIPs must. be "organied and ~ri~ten in such a inanner that they
t~~il `oe rnean~.ngful ..~nd useful to decisionmakers and to the public."
(P'ib. Res. Sec. 21003 (b). ) To be legally sufficient .~n F-IR must
be ~.~dequate complete, and `~~resent a good faith effort at tull
disclosure. ~na1ysis of the environmental effects need not be
exhaustive, but ~i1l be judged in light of' that ~~as reasonably
feasible." (Remy, 180)
~l though disagreement .~.mong experts does not render an
EIR inadequate, the (eport should summarize the main
points of disaqreement. ~ Guidelines Sec. 15151] The
447 *3bsence of information in an EIR, or the failure to
reflect disagreement among the experts, does not per se
constitute a prejudicial abuse of discretion. (Pub. res.
Sec. 21005.) ~ prejudicial abuse of discretion occurs if
the failure to include relevant information precludes
informed decisionmaking and informed public
Qarticipation, thereby thwarting the statutory goals of
the EIR process. (L~preLJ~e~ghts Ii!!provement ~ssn. v.
P of California (1988) 47 C. 3d 376,
403-405; 253 C.R. 426.) ~ V. Ci~
of Hanford (1990) 221 C.~. 3d 692, 712; 270 C.R. 650.)
In discussing \4hat constitutes an adequate EIR, Remy observed
that the ~ Bureau Court addresses the following
important issues:
the need to support pith rigorous analysis and concrete
3ubstantial evidence the conclusion that inpacts sill be
()FIR. Imperial County (;eneral Plan 45
PAGE 154 Show Image
insignificant; the requirement to analyze both on-site
and secondary air pollution emissions in assessing the
overall significance of air quality imQacts; the proper
(nethod by L~hich to assess cumulative impacts in context
of an already degraded environment; the proper geographic
scoQe of cumulative impact analysis; the requirement to
provide comparative quantitative analysis in assessing
the environmental merits and feasibility of protect
alternatives; and the fact that analysis of alternatives
should not be unduly narrowed by investments made by
applicants prior to the commencement of environmental
review. (Remy, 181)
*The missing information and inadequate discussions or the
project environmental setting gives a DEIR which could not provide
an adequate discussion of impacts not an adequate analysis of
info-mation based on 3vidence. accordingly, many conclusions tha'
the impacts of the proposed project/general plan update sill be
insignificant are without foundation. although the DEIR contains
much information and many tables, much of it is unrelated or
irrelevant to the missing information and accurate mapping L~hich is
essential to support L~ith "rigorous analysis -and concrete
substantial evidence the conclusion that impacts will be
insignificant" (Remy, 181). It is a conclusory statement that
447 "rniti'~ation measures provided in this EIR shall mitigate potential
cumulative impacts to below a level of significance." (DE,rd~, ~.
Cunulative Impacts section.)
~1though an FIR analysis need not be exhaustive" (CFQ~
P~uidelines, Sec. 15151), nevertheless, even before the
Farm Bureau decision, "the courts have
Iv\in~s Coup~y -
tavored specificity and use of detail in FIRs. (whitman
v. Board of Suoervisors (1979) 88 C.~. 3d 397, 411; 151
(;.R. 866.) "~ conclusory statement , unsupported by
empirical or experimental data, scientific authorities
or ex~lanatory information of any kind `not only fails to
cystallize issues [citation] but' affords no basis for
-a comparison of the problems involved with the proposed
project and the difficulties involved in the
31 ternatives. (P~qpJe,~y :~C9!4pt~oI Kern (1974) 39 c.~.
3d 830 841-842; 115 O.R. 67), quoting Silva V. L~n
(1973) 482 F.2d 1232,1285.) (Remy, 131-182.)
For example, how could continued groundwater monitoring in the
Ocotillo-Coyote sells basin alleviate any impacts when there are no
proposed actions to be taken in response to data indicating water
quality changes/degradation'? another example is the mitigation
measures to reduce air quality impacts. One measure refers to the
1991 ~ir duality attainment Plan (DEIR, 111-188-189) which proposes
measures that conflict with the GP-LUF policy (GP-~UF, p.56).
Cumulative impacts discussion is more unrealistic.
C)FIR, imperial County General Plan 46
PAGE 155 Show Image
Why does the DEIR state that the already poor air quality of
the County, with its existing problematic monitoring and
enforcement by loCal officials would be mitigated to below a level
of significance through implementation of the General Plan ~ir
448 Quality Element... (DEIR, V-5) when no such ~ir Quality Element
has been prepared in the past or for inclusion with the draft
General Plan Update? The purported reliance on implementation of
an non-existing General Plan Element. is hardly likely to mitigate
the present or future air quality impacts-
DEIR discussion of mitigation measures related to biological
resources fails to provide data or scientific authorities to
support conclusions that they would/could mitigate impacts. Such
449 evidence is necessary, because 3LM documents of 1973 and 1990
report on the lack of success of such mitigation measures in the
desert environment and with the species in Imperial County.
The DEIR fails to fully disclose and discuss in detail the
areas of controversy that should be known to the lead aqency, and
which have been raised by other agencies and by the public as
required by CEQ~ Guidelines Sec. l5l2~(c). Examples of such issues
include but are not limited ton the following.
[7~ Why doesn't the DEIR accurately re~1ect 8LM policies and
4501 programs/management plans for the E~s~ ~esa and Yuha ~a:~in (~~nd
~~sewhere in the County)?
Based on current monitoring data and studies of the local
4511 underlying geology, what are the .~round~ater b~3sed resource
Lcon.s~raints in the ocotillo-Coyote `AJells groundwater basin?
452~~ What are the groundwater resource constraints or the north end
the County on either side of the Salton sea?
~~What are the nature of groundwater resource constraints in the
(~nza Borrego basin/groundwater planning 3rea in Imperial County
4531 downgradient of San Diego County usage and in the Colorado river
(East) groundwater basins relied upon by Palo Verde, Bard,
Winterhaven and future SP~ at felicity?
What are the impacts of the 12/92 EP~ ruling related to water
4541 quality of raw canal water available to rural residential users
Lithin the irrigated agricultural areas served by lID?
hat are the impacts of possible closure of County operated
4SSLandfills on BLM lands?
7. What are the implications of public review of a `egional
landfill proposed prior to completion of the County ¶n~egrated
~~61 Waste Management Plan with its site selection and review process.?
are proposed landfills discussed under Existing Conditions'
for Solid Wastes (DEIR ¶11-150)?
DEIR. Imperial County General Plan
PAGE 156 Show Image
~hy is there no discussion of potential conflicts in
interpretation of authorized uses created by drawing curved
boundaries for Ocotillo/Nomirage Community area (in S~ Imperial
County) through rather than around individual parcels of land as
457 was done everywhere else in Imperial County? ~ll other land use
categories boundaries appear to follow grid lines imposed by the
township/range and section survey lines unless there is a water-way
causing such a boundary. Likewise the curved boundary through Fort
Y'jma Reservation in SE Imperial County is without a logic-I basis
especially since the County has no jurisdiction for planning on the
reserva t ion But more importantly, why should there be a communi ty
A~O area which includes only 13.9% o~ the land under private ownership?
~ Much of that Community area includes two ~C~Cs and two proposed
wilderness ~reas. ~hy shouldn't this area be in the Preservation,
with *new uses and restrictions as proposed elsewhere in this
r~spo nsa?
`~- Discussion of basin specific ~roundwater issues in ~he eater
element of the General Plan Update was either inadequate,
imprecise inaccurate, or lacking in any meaningful detail. There
is simply not enough information for meaningful DEIR discussion 0t:
r-?..source based carrying capacity related to potant~al iroacts of
proposed land uses at maximum build-out. Insufficient and
inadequate discussion of groundwater basins relied on for
development in both San Diego and River3ide Counties in addition to
Imperial County resulted in the DEIR's absolute ~ailur~ ~ discuss
impacta to t;hese basins trom development anticipated in the drag,';
general Plan Update- Further, there are the poten~ia1 conflicts or
i nconipa t i b i Ii ty of the resu 1 t i ng ~ rou ndwa te r resou rc.--: demands
459 resulting from projected (General Plan) growth in the adjoining
counties which rely on the same groundwater resource. DETER
discussion based on out-dated or inadequate or inaccu,~ate
information results in an impact an.-~1ysis that would underestimate
or improperly characterize potential project ~npacts on the
groundwater resources in different basins wi th projec ted increased
utilization additionally, the misleading natur~~ of ~he discussion
*~nd the tailure to include relevant information related to
groundwater based development anticipated by the General Plan
Update render the EIR inadequate as an informational document -
(k~ng 5 Cqypty Bureau v. Cit.y~ot~.H..anford (1990) 221 C..~. 3d
692, 7~7.)
These issues should have been included in the DEIR Summary,
but were not. Indeed, the summary has the tollowing mandatory
requirements:
OEQ~ Guidelines Sec- 15123.
(a) ~n EIR shall contain a brief summary of the proposed
460 actions and its consequences. The language of the
summary should be as clear and as simple as reasonably
practical -
(b) The summary shall identify:
(~) each significant effect with the proposed
DFIR, Imperial County General Plan
PAGE 157 Show Image
mitigation measures and alternatives that would reduce or
avoid that effect;
(2) area of controversy known to the Lead agency
including issues raised by agencies and the public: and
(3) Issues to be resolved including the choice among
460 alternatives and whether or how to mitigate the
significant effects. (CEQ~ Guidelines Sec. 15123.)
Failure of the DEIR to 3ddress the major areas of controversy in
the summary reflects the failure to discuss them elsewhere in the
DEIR and is but one more inadequacy of the document.
DEIR FAILS TO ~DE~U~TELY DISCUSS SIGNIFICANT ENvIRONMENTAL
TMP~CTS OF GENERAL PL.~N UPDATE ~S REQUIRED BY CEQ~ GUIDELINES
EEC. ~5l26
DEIR fails to adequately discuss significant environmental
impacts of General Plan Update as required by CEQ~ Guidelines
sec.15126. ~~ith respect to the major deficiencies of the DEIR,
relevant ~e~t of Sec. 15126 follows:
~ll phases of a project must be considered when
evaluating its impact on the environment: planning,
d-c~u1s1tion, development, and operation. The following
~ubjects shall be discussed, preferably in separate
~~ct~ons or ~ar~graphs. If they are not discussed
-~e~ara~?..ly, f;he EIR shall include a table showing where
~ of the -ubjects is discussed.
(.~) The Sic~ni~icant Envi--onmental ~~fects or the
Proposed Project. ~n EIR shall identify and focus on the
3igni~icant environmental effects o~ the project. Direct
dnd indirect significant effects of the project on the
environment 3hall be clearly identified and described,
living due consideration to both the short-term and long-
461 term effects. The discussion should include relevant
specifics of hhe area, the resources involved, physical
changes, ~lterations to ecological systems, and changes
indUced in ~opulation distribution, population
concenr.--~tion, the human use of the land (including
commercial and residential development), health and
safety problems caused by the physical changes, and other
aspects of the resource base such as water, scenic
(duality, and public services. The EIR shall also analyze
~ny significant environmental effects the project might
cause by bringing development and people into the area
affected. ... -
(b) ~ny significant Environmental Effects ~&4hich Cannot
be avoided if the Proposal is rmplemented. Describe any
significant impacts, including those which can be
mitigated but not reduced to a level of ins~gnific3nce.
\4here there are impacts that cannot be alleviated without
imposing an alternative design, their implications and
the reasons why the project is being proposed,
notwithstanding their effect, should be described. (OEQ~
()EIR, Imperial County General Plan 49
PAGE 158 Show Image
461L Guidelines,
4
DEIR FAILS TO SUPPORT WITH EVIDENCE CONCLUSIONS THAT IMPACTS
WILL 8E INSIGNIFICANT OR NONEXISTENT
462 The decision in __
discussed earlier suggests serious analyses and reliance on
concrete stjbstantial evidence L~ill be required tc uphold
determinations that project impacts are insignificant there such
impacts .~re not. minor or trivial. Specific examples of missing or
inadequate discussion of ifflpacts which the DEIR concluded could
potentially be assumed to be insignificant, but for which evidence
is lacking to support such ;~ conclusion include, but ~re not
iimi~ed to the following:
1.. The DEIR discussion of environmental impacts on groundwater
resources (water ~uali ty *.~nd water quantity) -~ .35 distinguished
from environmental ifnpacts on water resources having their origin
in Colorado River surface water -- is missing for all groundwater
basins in section ~ Water Service and ~vailability' (DEIR III-
170). ~ailure to discuss specific groundwater impacts cannot be
construed to mean that future impacts will be either insignificant
or nonexistent for purposes or CEQ~. ~ather~: ~The cumulative
impact on icc~l ~nd rec~~ional water resources must be evaluated in
1 ght (~f the overall `.~Jarer supply and de:~~and (K,,in~s Countv F.3rm..
Bure,,~u, V. City..of Hanford (1990) 201 C.~. J-d 692,728.) In the
absence of data indicating the volume of groundwater Qumped for use
463 by all existing and all projected uses anticipated by the proposed
;eneral Plan Update for each groundwater basin used for residential
ptjrposes .3nd the existing General Plans of any ~u-isdiction using
groundwater from the same basin(s), it is impOSsible to evaluate
whether such impActs 3re significant or not, and whether 3nd to
what extent; any proposed groundwater mitigations sill succeed.
_.................BQr~a,u, supri at 729.) Indeed, monitoring was
(Kinqs C.Qun..tM Firm
proposed for only one groundwater basin. 8ecause the pattern of
land ownership in relation to the groundwater resources or
sensitive portions of those resources has not been identified, the
full nature of potential impacts and cumulative impacts cannot be
evaluated -
Why is there no discussion on cumulative impacts of growth in
the Ocotillo/ Nomirage Community area or other groundwater
dependent communities on groundwater quality? How can the public
be expected to believe that potential cumulative impacts would be
mitigated by deficient and/or lacking policies in the Water element
464 to adequately deal with even the existing groundwater quality
issues'? When the results of groundwater monitoring data and the
implications of that data has been ignored for so long, why should
the public feel any confidence in policies that fail to include any
specific mitigation measures or actions to be taken when threshold
changes to water ~uali ty constituents are observed by moni tor~ng
DEIR. Imperial County General Plan 50
PAGE 159 Show Image
4,( Ida ta?
DEIR fails to discuss the down-gradient impacts of (1)
increased groundwater use and (2)increased potential for
groundwater contamination because of increased nitrate release via
(a) septic leachate infiltration associated with increased
residential and/or recreation usage or (b) infiltration and/or run-
off containing agricultural chemicals. DEIR omits discussion ot
these issues both as they impact downgradient human uses on private
lands and as they impact sensitive riparian habitats where
leclining water tables could drop below the root zone of the native
vegetation and/or affect water levels and drainage patterns in the
San ~elipe/San Sebastian Marsh ~CEC managed by BLM as desert
Qupfish habitat. The desert pupfish has been listed as an
~~ndan~ered species and is 30 included in Table 14 "Sensitive animal
465 species in ~mperia1 County" (DEER, 111-97). The San Sebastian
Marsh ~CEC is down gradient of an area designated on the Proposed
Land tjse Plan (DEIR ~ig. 4) as agriculture, and otherwise
surrounded by land use category Recreation Open SQace, which
indicates that agriculture would be among those uses authorized on
private lands. Individuals with inholdings in the range of a
1i~~ed or proposed species habitat have responsibilities (Sec. 10)
~nd~r the ES~ and can be prosecuted for violations. The cumulative
rnp~ct~ of increased develo~men~ of permitted uses on private lands
in dd~tion to those impacts that can be reasonably *~ntici~at~d by
~ip gr ~dient water users in the portions ot: the groundwater basin n
~ diego County should be1 but have not been addressea in the
L~1P
By failing to discuss groundwater use and impacts on the
groundwater b~.~sin in Riverside County from which water is ?xport;ed
f:or jse by r'.urrent developments in Imperial County on both ~ic~es of
466 tt~e Salton Sea, the DEIR ignores the issue of potential irnQacts
that could/would result from the urban build-out of ~l,S40 aces on
the west side or the projected possible population of 75,000 on ~he
east side of the Sea.
.~. Project inconsistencies or potential incompatibilities with
plans of other governmental agencies in addition to the cumulative
impacts on shared resources were not discussed. Plans of other
such agencies are the San Diego County General Plan, Riverside
County General Plan. and BLM El Centro Resource area 3ctivity
plans. The following is a list of some of the SLM nanagement plans
which should have been considered:
467 area of Critical Environmental Concern Management Plans
Yuha Basin 6/81
Yuha Desert 3/85
San Sebastian Marsh/San Felipe Creek, 12/86
East Mesa 9/82
In-~oh-Pah Mountains 2/88
Chuckwalla Bench 3/86
DEIR. Imperial County General Plan Si
PAGE 160 Show Image
Pilot Knob 7/82
Indian Pass 7/87 (
Lake Cahuilla 9/84
Singer Geoglyph 8/86
Plank Road 9/85
rest Mesa, in progress
Habitat Management Plans
~lgodones Dunes 12/87
Milpitas sash 1/86
Yuha Desert 7/83
467 East Mesa 7/83
Desert Tortoise, in progress
Flat-tailed Horned Li~ar-d 1/90
Recreation area Management Plans
Jacumba outstanding Natuf~al ~re~ 7~
Imperial San Dunes 7/~7
applicable. management QIans of other agencies such as
California Dept. of Fish and Game, U.S. -i~h and wildlife Service
and B~~reau of Reci3mation L~er-~ not mentioned, but consistency ~i th
their plans should also be discussed.
3. ~3ilure of ~he DEIR to discu~£* the axic~ing conditions of tne
L.~1CxiOO school district other than listin'~ the number of schools
cannot jtistify total failure to disotiss potential imoacts on this
school district then the lar~est area of: urban exoanslon associated
pith incorporated cities in the proposed land use plan Fig. 4 is to
468 the east; of C~le'
PAGE 161 Show Image
OTHFR PRO8~8L~ SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS NOT ~DEQU~TELY .~DDR~SS~D
a result of incomplete or inadequate project descriptIon,
including figures wIth inaccurate or inconsistent locations of
biological resources and the failure to provide any figure/map
showing paL~erns of public/private land ownership, the D~IR fails
to adequately address a number of probable significant effects or
impacts Including but not limited to:
FZi nconsistencies between the proposed General Plan Update and
fzt.ate ].a~ requirements for protection of resources, nclu~ing
4711 5Cn54tive or listed biological resources according to F5~ and
losure of existing County operat;ed landfills on 8Lrl lands if
4721 -~ new regional landfill for importation of out-of-county solid
~ste ;~ sited within the county
F-; C~roundwater quality impacts resulting prom increased
I residential development and commercial recreational vehicle larks
Ln groundwater dependent areas not; served by existing or proposed
treatment facilities.
4. ~;rc~undt~at;er level and groundwater quality impacts resulting
r rofn increased agricu I tu ral usage, including aquacu 1 tu re, lfl
groundwater dependent areas within the recreation/open space ].&nd
474 I~se category~ agriculture land use category, or wit;hin community
3rea land use categories within which such uses would be authori-ed
~s -~ result; of underlying zoning classifications.
The land use impact of converting existing open spacel
preservation areas to recreation/open space and authori:ing
xn~;ensive commercial recreational development or agriculture. Off-
475 site impacts1 including those associated with mining and potential
regional landfills, on sensitive wildlife such as ~THL, desert
tortoise, and desert pupfish need to be addressed there
app rop r late.
Impacts of the project to the desert pupfish and desert
tortoise. Desert pupfish may be impacted by changing water quality
476 and water levels in natural habitat currently managed by 8L~. ~
requires review of any impacting project to Critical HabItat by
USF~S. (watkins, 1993.)
The DEIR fails to provide adequate discussion of the desert
tortoise or inform the public and decision makers that the ~L£i is
477 in the process of preparing a desert tortoise Habitat management
Plan. The BLPI prepared map of the proposed Chuckwalla Habitat
tianagement area presented for public review at 8L~1's January
D~IR, Imoerial County General Plan
PAGE 162 Show Image
Scoping meetings for the project which included mast of the area
east of the railroad tracks in areas not shown on D~IR ~ig 15
(111-126) to contain sensitive biology . Not only is the desert
tortoise a sensitive species, because it is listed as threatened,
it is a fully protected species- additionally, its habitat
extends beyond that which is managed by 8LM. (Watkins, 1993.)
The desert tortoise was emergency listed as endangered in
477 august 89 and downgraded to threatened in 4/90 (Watkins, 1993).
The desert tortoise was inadequately discussed in the D~IR. dLM is
currently in the process of preparing a desert tortoise habitat
management plan (HMP). The proposed Chuckwalla HMP Includes ~
m~-~~ping area considerably different from those indicated in figures
~1. .~nd 14 in the DEIR environmental assessment for biological
`?sou~rces. (BLN desert tortoise HMP map for the Chuckwalla H N ares.~
In Imperial County is included in the appendix.) The habitat is
l..~r(~er than that mapped by BLN (Watkins, 1993)
8. Potential impacts associated with road widenin(~ :~nd
development; of a new state route connecting to the new part of
*`:~ntry east of Calexico are not adequately analyzed. The DFIR f3~ils
to pro';ide evidence or explain how evaluation of the proposci
roadway projects could `avoid or minimise adverse impacts~' as
Indicated on DEIR 111-66. The *3tatement that: `There would be no
Adverse mp.:~cts resulting f ram the ;jpdate or the Circulation no
~c2nic Hi~hw~yz ¶-l~~3ment" of the 1973 Ceneral 9lan t.:~ils to
478 .~cknowiedy.e that discussion of potential Impacts must oe addr~s~ed (
In terms of potential or probable changes from the axistIn~
conditions. (CEQ~ Guidelines Sec. 15125 & Discussion.) The DEI.~
fnust evaluate the environmental consequences at new roadway
cons~r~iction and other essential infrastructure faci1iti~s required
to serve new development. Similarly, the proposed new SP~
deveic~pment areas designated on the fi~ures showing proposed land
I~s~ .~esi(~nations for the Proposed Land Use Plan shoula Include
di sc~ss ion c~f roadways and transparra tion Impacts.
9. The D¶;IR 111-51 fails to explain how knowledge of the Imperial
County Right-to-Farm Ordinance (Na. 1031) will actually serve to
mitigate the cited impacts or land use conflicts resulting from the
expansion of residential areas into agricultural lands, especIally
those residential areas that have "leap-frogged" into agricultural
areas. How does acknowledging the existence of agricultural use
creation of `nuisances such as flies, odors, dust, noise, night
lIght, and chemical spraying' and farm machinery transport
conflicts serve to minimize the impacts or the associated land use
conflicts?
10. DEIR 111-55 fails to explain what is meant by `locating and
securing replacement Important Farmland that has not been in
480 agricultural production for at least the preceding five years'.
!~here is this Important Farmland to be found, and wh~~ Is meant by
Improvement with necessary irrigation eater delivery and drainage
DEIR Imoerial County Genera] &lan 54
PAGE 163 Show Image
I systems~~? Ts this is a reference to proposed expansion of
irrigated agriculture onto lands now managed by BLM in the East
Mesa with special reference to habitat for the flat-tailed horned
lizard? If so, the statement that: "The agriculture designation
would not conflict with underlying 8LM designations and is in fact
consistent with the designation of this area [East Mesal as General
480 agriculture stands in sharp contrast with stated BLM policy
regarding its management of resources in the East Mesa area. 8LM
East Mesa ~C~C HMP includes a management action for acquisition of
private lands within the ~CEC boundaries to afford better
management and reduced land use conflicts in FTHL habitat. (See
additional discussion elsewhere in this response.)
11. OF-IR fails to explain why the designated SPAs for Tamarisk,
East 8order Crossing, Holtville airstrip, and potential development
along existing state roads and highway intersections would or could
481 avoid urban/agricultural land uso- co~~~1icts that would be created
by permitting leapfrog residential development as discussed in the
agricultural impacts sections.
1.2. ~hy does discussion of the groundwater basin in the
Ocot~tlo/NQmir.3ge community *~rea ~et such inadequate discussion?
Tsn' t ~he largest user of groundwater from that basin the w~l lboard
pl.~nt at Plaster City? Doesn't it import all of its w3ter from the
Ocotillo basin?
The DEIR fails to discuss the impscts OT industry at. Plaster
City using groundwater import2-d rrom the Ocotillo basin. U.S.
Gypsum's ~alLboard plant at Plaster Cit\" is located in the only
area o~ unincorporated Imperial County desi(~nai;ed as "Industrv" in
the Proposed Land use Plan. Zf it is ~n~icipated that. continuing
increased growth in the western US may be expected, should not this
cause concomitant expansion at U.S. Gypsum?
that would be the impacts to the Qcotillo-Coyote sells
482 grotindwat.er basin if Plaster City continues pumping and exporting
groundwater prom its existing `.~ater `sells located between the
communities of Ocotillo and Nomirage at the present rate for the
100 year expected life of the gypsum deposit (General Plan Update,
Conservation and Open Space Element appendix p. ~-6)? How would
the projected long term industrial use of groundwater impact future
residential development in terms of both groundwater quality and
availability given the patterns of federal/private land ownership?
that would be the social and economic impacts of degraded
groundwater quality on residential uses overlying the groundwater
basin? that are the proJected environmental impacts of lonq-term
or increased industrial groundwater usage on down-gradient plant
communities such as mesquite hummocks, ironwoods following drainage
channels, and crucifixion thorn stands as sensitive unusual plant
I assemblages on BUM managed lands? How would impacts on vegetation
and \,eqetative cover impact wildlife?
DEIR, Imperial County Genersl Plan
PAGE 164 Show Image
13. What is the anticipated source of water for development of
other industrial activities in the Industry Land Use Category in
the Plaster City area? If groundwater, will it be non-potable
groundwater pumped from wells underlying the Industry land use
Category? If not, from where, and ~ha ~ are the environmental
impacts of use at the proposed site and down-gradient?
The DEIR should contain detailed discussion relative to
4~expansion of industrial activities which may be permitted at the
Plaster City Industry area. If Colorado River water is
anticipated, the DEIR should discuss the procedures necessary to
extend Imperial Irrigation service to the area, including, but not
limited to exchange of water development; rights ~ithin the lID
service area, BLM rights of way or easements r~~uired, potential
loca~.ion of such right of way or easement, availability of supply
from lID, and other development related criteria.
14. DEIR should discuss the c~roundwater impacts and water
requirements for each of the different cyanide-heap leach mining
operations and any other gold or miner.31 mining operations
discussed in the Conservation/Open 3pace .~ppendi~ ~ or the General
Plan Update. What volumes of water 3re used for each operation?
Wh3t are t;he localized impacts and what are the cumulative impacts
for all operations relying on the same QJroundwater resource? H~s
groundwater exrraction .~nd transport resul ted in .~nv reversal of
484 direction of flow or ~radient rel~t;ed to t;he Color~do River? If
so, what are the envi ronmen~al ulpac ~ On r i,~ar i~n ve'~e ta tion in
washes and along runoff channels? How have changes in the
microphyllous vegetative cover impacted ~he threatened desert
tortoise and/or other sensitive .~ildlife species i D.he area?
How much water used for mining operations is surface water
from the Colorado River? How is such surface water transported to
the mining sites?
l~. Projected expansion of sand and 9r3\'ei ~perc'tions on BLPI lands
in the locations o~ such deposits are not .~deQua~ely discussed in
the DEIR. What are the projected lives of the reserves at each of
the presently operating pits, both County operated pits and private
pits? What mitigations are proposed to reduce the impacts of sand
485 and gravel transport through residential comfnunit~es such as
Ocotillo? What are the local social and economic impacts of such
operations on the communities closest to the sand and gravel pits?
How will future increased conflicts be resolved if sand and gravel
operations are expanded closer to residential communi ties?
16. DEIR fails to provide adequate discussion of the potential
infrastructure, water delivery, social and economic impacts of the
December l9~2 EP~ decision related to the supplying of raw canal
486 water from the Colorado River to rural res~dent~al users of lID
water scattered throughout the irrigated agricultural areas. This
is a major issue related to urban development beyond the service
DEIR, Imperial County General Plan 56
PAGE 165 Show Image
I boundaries of existing eater service districts. DEIR should
address plans or problems associated L~ith expansion of
infrastructure ~or providing poLable eater to such existing and
~tu re residences
[7.T he DEIR fails to provide adequate discussion of land use
4871 conflicts, growth inducing impacbs, and infrastructure impacts of
~~ate prisons both existing and tender construction.
18. DEIR sails to adequately address the conflicts created between
County land uses and Federal management plans and policies created
by deleting "Preservation" designation of the 1973 Plan.
PRESERVATION VS. RECREATION/OPEN SPICE
*DEI~ ERRONEOUSLY CONCLUDES REPLACING 1973 PRESERVATION
LEND USE DESIGNATION TO RECREATION/OPEN SPICE TO INCLUDE
~GR~CULT~)R~L USES WILL NOT CONFLICT WITH BLM DESIGNATIONS
The DEIR discussion about the impacts of deleting the
Preservation Land Use Category of the 1973 Plan and placing landa
so designated into the Recreation/Open Space category (DEIR, III-
17) is either intentionally misleading or very n~aive. The location
of lands designated as preservation under the 1973 Land Use Plan
(DEI9, TII-5) ~as compared to the BLiP maps (DIGs 20, 21, and ~
~ "I,;P~ 5ensit.ive Pl~nt.s, Wildlife ~reas and Unusual Plani;
.-~saembl~qe~" (DEI~. I~I-o,3), -ig. 14. `Resource *~reas' (PEIR, III-
~i5, and 8L~1 Plan ~men~ments, including the 1985 plan amendment.
While it L5 true that the vast majority of theso lands are
federal lands!nanaged by 8L~1, the changes L~ould also include more
488 then twenty (20) square miles of privately owned lands, mast of
them being inholdings surrounded by BLM lands. sore than 20 square
i~1l~5 of i~.nds on which agriculture could no~ be, authorized
accordinq to the text of GP-LUE and DEIR (111-13, 17). (20 square
miles is 12,800 acres.
The majority of these private lands which L~ould be removed
from the 1973 Preservation designation are lands located within or
adjacent to BLM areas which require special management plans, in
part, to protect wildlife habitat for sensitive or endangered
species. Consequently, the use of agriculture on these lands ~~~ould
conflict pith the underlying 8LPl designations and adopted
management plans and adopted BLtl policy regarding irrigated
agr icu 1 tu r'e.
Of the more than 20 square miles of private lands to be
removed from preservation and opened up to agriculture are
approximately 10 square miles which are either surrounded by or
adjacent to BLPI's Yuha Basin ~CEC ~~~hich is managed in part for
optimal flat-tailed lizard habitat. Several more square miles are
within the drainage/recharge area for the San Sebastian marsh/San
F~lipe Creek ~CEC which is managed, in part, for critical habitat
DEIR, ¶mp~ri~l County C,eneral Plan 57
PAGE 166 Show Image
for the endangered desert pupfish approximately 9 square miles
~ppears to be adj~cent to or surrounded by the Imperial San Dunes
488 including I square mile sur~rounded by or immediately adjacent to
the ~lgodones dunes Outstanding Natural area.
The DEIR states that changing the land use designation from
preservation to Recreation/Open Space would allow potentially
impactive uses such as agriculture. (DEIR, 111-17.) Both Fir. 11
and 14 must be updated to reflect mapping changes rhat have
occurred since the adoption of the 1980 BLM CDC~ Plan, but they
still point out the conflicts created by the deletion of the
Preservation designation and authorizing agricultural uses on hose
lands. By comparing Fig. 3, the 1973 Land Use Plan map (DEIR, III-
5) with the locations of sensitive biological resources on Figs. 11
~nd ~4 (DEIR 111-93 ~.nd £15), it is apparent that the original
designation of preservation closely corresponds to federal lands
requ I ring *3pec i.~ 1 fflan3gemen t p rog rams. Therefore the DEIR reached
-n insupportable conclusion that: The designation proposed by the
Plan Update would not conflict with the underlying BL~
designations, and therefore no adverse land use effects are
anticipated. Nothing could be further from the facts or from the
discussion of biological resources within areas of Gitical
Environmental Ooncern and wildlife habitat management areas in the
section on environmental analysis for biological resources (DEIR,
111-117,118 and eiseL~her~ throughout that section). Opening to
agricul turn these lanes adjacent to or -urrounded by these -ederal
i~.~nd3 ~i th special m.~nagement plans is to create authorized
significant imoacts on fedeal lands and thereby set the stage for
conflicting uses.
DEIR 1N~PPROPRI(~TELY COMP.~RES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF
PROPOSED GF.NER.~L PLAN UPDATE TO EXISTING 1973 PLAN RATHER THEN
TO EXISTING CONDITIONS ON THE GROUND
The typical "drift EIR must discuss any inconsistencies
betL~een the proposed project and existing general plans and
regional plans' (CEC;~ Guidelines 15125(b), in Remy, 190.) In
discussing the environmental impacts of the proposed General Plan
Update project, the authors of the DEIR noted that: "There are
differences between the land use designations of the 1973 Plan and
490 the Plan Update." (DEIR, 111-14.) assuming that the General Plan
Update could be treated as any other project for DEIR review, they
proceeded to evaluate the impacts associated with these
differences (DEIR, 11114).
that the drafters of the DEIR failed to understand is thai the
DEIR for the General Plan Update must evaluate environmental
impacts differently than would be required for other project DIRs.
there a proposed project is an agency decision changing
planning or toning designations, its potential imoacts
should not be compared only with those that woulc
DEIR, Imperial Count.\' General Plan 58
PAGE 167 Show Image
ultimately occur under an existing plan. Rather, such an
analysis should focus on existing physical conditions
before comparing the eventual future conditions that
would result under build-out pursuant to both the
existing and contemplated plan. (CEQ~ Guidelines, Sec.
15125(c) and discussion; citations, in Remy, 191)
~n Environmental Planning and information Council V. Coun *~El
Do r...a...d9. (1982) 131 C.~. 3d 350, 354; 182 C.R. 317, the Court found
a general plan ameridment project EIR inadequate because it; t:ailed
to analyze the plan amendment's physical effects in terms of the
existing physical conditions in the "actual environment; upon
which t;he proposal will operate." (14, at 354.) The Court; found
that; the EIR "should have compared build-out under t;he proposed
amendment to the relatively rural, undeveloped situation on the
9ound." (Remy. 191.)
Thus. followino CE~~ Guidelines Sec. 15125 and Discussion and
the decision of the Court in Environmental P
Council y. qq~ty~f E~ D9rad9 (1982) 131 C.~. 3d 350; 182 C.R.
317. the DEIR discussion of environmental impacts must be measured
490 3gainst t;he stated existing conditions on the ground noted in
DEIR 111-1 rather than comparing impacts of the proposed GP land
use designations to build-out under the 1973 Plan (DEIR, 111-14)
(as was done in the existing DEIR).
The existing conditions which must; form t;he basis against
which impacts are measured are ones in whic~ t;he developed ar3a 0
t;he County with its cities, unincorporated communities, and zupport
facilities comprise less t;han one percent of the land (Table 1)."
The DEIR analysis of environmental impacts t;hat would result
prom adoption and implementation of t;he proposed Gen~ral Plan as
described in t;he text of t;he General Plan Update and ~he Proposed
Land Use Plan (DEIR, Fig. 4, 111-li) is f:at;ally flawed because the
Analysis of potential environfnental impacts of proposed land uses
was not compared t;o existing conditions on t;he ground todav. Even
the subheading "Contrasts with the 1973 Plan" confirms that; the
DEIR impacts analysis was improperly prepared and of necessity will
be inadequate under CEQ~. How will this serious discrepancy ~e
Co r rec ted?
Urban and Residential Development;
Discussion of impacts resulting from urban and residential
development begins on the wrong foot and from an inappropriate
understanding of impacts analysis. The text compares acreage
491 figures for areas designated as urban in the 1973 Plan (122,026
acres) and in the proposed 1993 plan (73,240 acres). (DEIR, III-
14.) It then provides out-dated 1985 information that 13,028 acres
were developed within both incorporated and unincorporated areas of
the County. (DEIR, 111-14.) In claiming that the *` reduction in the
tot;al acres designat;ed for urban land uses is not regarded as an
DEIR. Imperial County (general Plan 59
PAGE 168 Show Image
adverse impact. .` (DEI~, 111-14), the DEIR's authors exhibit their
failure to comprehend the kind of impacts analysis required by C~Q~
491 .3nd the courts in interpreting CEQ~. The DEIR fails to analyze the
environmental impacts that could result from the conversion of more
than 60,000 acres of land from their present agricultural uses or
existing undeveloped condition.
additionally the changing of thousands of acres to
Recreation/Open Space designation as described in the GP-LUE (p.45-
46) could authorize intensive irrigated agriculture or intensive
recreational residential or commercial recreational uses on large
oarcels (over 160 acres) of private lands throughout the County, in
492places ~~here such uses could not have been permitted previously,
:~nd there land i~ vacant desert land today. The environmental
Lmpacets resulting from this kind of development on vacant desert
lands, often as isolated inholdings or in a checkerboard pattern of
Qrivate/federal ownership has not been evaluated. Is an unstated
policy objective imp)ied by this change? If so, please identify.
The environmental impacts analysis turns CEQ~ upside-down when
Ii; states that: `The reduction in the 3llocation of land for urban
levels of land use intensity, as well as rhe reduction in areas
designated for lesser intensity residential development; on the
493 periphery of urban areas, is not viewed as an adverse land use
impact." (DEIR, 111-15 ) \4hile that conclij.$ion may be correct.
the statement circumvents the analysis or ~mpact-5 that must be
considered as the result of converting gricuitu~al lands or
undistUrbed desert lands to urban uses.
~hy was the Desert Residential land use designation dropped
from the proposed update? that policy objective is being furthered
~`such change?
Designation of Specific Plan areas
The DEIR does acknowledge that there will be `~nvironmental
imoacts associated with the development of the eight designated
SPAs. (DEIR, 111-15, ii.) The total acreage of 7 of the 3 SPAs
for which acreage is given is 16,300 acres, or just a small
fraction of the 60,000 acres which could be urbanized in the
future. ~hy doesn't the DEIR discuss any potential for
495 environmental impacts of future urbanization?
How do preparing site specific environmental studies,
establishing standards and criteria for approval, and making
findings serve to mitigate potential land use impacts? There is no
reference to mandatory physical mitigations. that happens if
environmental impacts cannot be mitigated adequately?
F- .~gricultural Land
496417 `The Plan Update proposes an agricultural designation for 588,
acres.' (DEIR, III-16~) This is considerably more than the
559,435 acres used for agriculture in 1990 (GP-~E, p.30). that is
D~IR. Imperial County Gener3l Plan
PAGE 169 Show Image
the location of the additional 30,000 acres intended for expanded
agricultural operations over and above the amount of land already
used for agriculture? The D~IR must provide an environmental
analysis of the impacts associated pith bringing new land into
agricultural uses. If these lands are scattered about the desert
on private inholdings surrounded by federal or state lands pith
adopted policies and management plans, there will be additional
off-site land use impacts that must be addressed because of the
496 federal and state management mandates with respect to sensitive or
listed wildlife and its habitat.
From the brief discussion of environmental impacts related to
agricultural lend use designation changes, it is obvious that here
too the D~IR fails to comprehend the requirement to evaluate
impac~ts based on changes prom the e~isting conditions. Why has the
logic of this equirement ~iuded the preparers of the D~IR?
DEIR FAILS TO ~DE~U~TELY ~N~LYL~E CUMUL~TIVE IMPACTS
The above referenced discussion of impacts cited individual
impacts *~nd additionally often referenced specific issues related
to cumulative impacts of existing or proposed uses related to the
General Plan update (project). The DEIR discussion of cumulative
impacts is inadequate and does not meet the requirements of CF~~
clu idelines ~or discuss inc; future impacts in pare because rhe
analysis of individual imp~ct.Z iZ- inadequate. CEQ~ Gui~elines
Section 15130 is speci~iO then *.~iscu5sinq cumulative impacts.
(Refer to ~ppendix for more detail.)
497
The DEIR for the Imperial County General Plan Update does not
meet the criteria set forth under CEQ~ Guidel~ne5 Section
~5l30(b)( l)(~) or (B) for comprising an adequate discussion o~
cumulative impacts. The Guidelines discussion of Section 15130
contains the following unambiguous explanation of that must b~
included among the cumulative impacts of a project. (Refer to
appendix for more detail.)
If the DEIR concludes that cumulative impacts are not
significant, it should explain why. (Remy, 192) Inadequate
discussion of cumulative impacts includes but is not limited to the
following:
~. The DEIR has failed to meet the criteria of CEQ~ Guidelines
Sec. 15130, in part because it has failed to discuss, as required,
the projects of other agencies pith land use responsibilities
498 within the County borders, Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land ~anagement, ~nza Borrego State
Park, and military uses.
listed earlier, the ~L~1 El Centro Resource area has adopted
~1numerous management plans for its designated areas of Critical
DEIR, Imperial County General Plan
PAGE 170 Show Image
Environmental Concern (~CECs), habitat management plans, and
recreation area management plans in addition to numerous plan
amendments which have changed boundaries of lands used ~or military
activities, changed boundaries of ~CECs, increased size of ~CECs,
deleted portions of ~CECs, and added a new ~CEC in the rest Mesa of
Imperial County. additionally, BLM is now in the process of
499 prep(~ring a desert tortoise habitat management plan, including the
proposed Chuckwaila habitat management area (BLM ma~ attached).
The DEIR i:ails to adequately describe the implications of these
planning documents of 8LM, an agency which must be considered as
among the other relevant public agencies's. (See References
section for list of adopted BLM Management Plans and Plan
~mendment.-3.)
3. The DEIR fails to consider any significant projects, including
current adopted General Plans of San Diego and Riverside Counties
for adjacent lands where a resource (such as ~roundwater or sir) is
500 shared and where transpo rta tion/ Lnf ras truc tu re components cross
county lines. Such consideration was requested by the Riverside
County Planning Department. (See DEIR .~ppendix.)
4. DEIR cumulative impacts discussion related to two proposed
regional landfills and gold mining operations is missing
tumulative impacts discussion of solid waste facilities is clearly
inadequate and mis leadi nq. Cumulative Impacts (DEIR p. v-i) s tai:es
that: *.~dequate landfill facilities and sites exist within the
County to meet project~d solid waste demands in the region.~ To
completely ignore the discussion of solid waste :~nder the
Environmental analysis ~or Public Services/Safety (DEIR p Ill-ISO)
is inexcusable and fails to comply with CE~~ Guidelines Sec. l5l;O.
The environmental analysis discussion of the DEIR stated:
501 There are currently two proposed large-scale privately-
owned landfill projects in the County. These projects
are the Mesquite Regional Landfill and the Chocolate
Mountain Regional Landfill. The County of Imperial has
requ i red that these pro jec t.s be designed to accommoda te
local solid waste as well as out-of-area solid waste
additionally, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has
requested that the existing landfills in Imperial County
that are located on BLM land be closed. (DEIR, 111-150.)
~hy is this discussion included in the section on existing
conditions when the environmental review documents have not yet
been released for public review?
5. Six of the County operated landfills are located on 8L~1 land
and would be subject to closure. The potential cumulative impact
of closure of six local landfills and long-haul of locally
generated solid waste will have additional impacts on
502 transportation air quality, social and economic impacts to the
local communities 3nd to the county that must be addressed. The
social and economic consequences that may result from the County
being identified as a dump site, with all the associates negative
DEIR Imperial County General Plan 62
PAGE 171 Show Image
images should also be evaluated. The potential existence of t~o
nearby trash by rail dump sires may sell stigmatize the County and
should be addressed. The cumulative impact of t~o proposed large-
scale dump sites located `.~ithin the boundaries of the BLM proposed
502Chuck~alla Desert Tortoise Habitat Management area must be
3ddressed. The cumulative impacts of the proposed landfills in
addition to the existing mining operations also located within the
Chuck~alla Desert Tortoise Habitat Management area must also be
addressed -
~. The County should be aware of the proposed Chuckwalla Desert
Tortoise Habitat Management planning area because Randy Rister, a
`county department head, ~as present at the BLM scoping meeting. In
.~ddition, Robert Filler of ~rid Operations, the landfill project
:~ppiicant, ~ also present at the meeting in Yuma.
Further, any discussion of off-SLte curnularive impacts
--~suiting from both large-scale proposed landfills and existing
cyanide heap-leach gold mining operations, must include a
recognition that all plans for such uses in the area included in
the BLM desert tortoise habitat management plan sill displace
L~)ldlifC and that such displacement i~ill be felt off-site. The
.:~ttraction of predators, especially ravens .3ttracted to the
t:indfill sites, could have a detrimental impact on the desert
tortoise in this vicinity. ~LPi~s *Chuck~alla bench ~C~C and
;~~nagement Plan and ~ noted that:
The biology of the desert tortoize makes Lt vuknerab~e to
a side variety of human activities. The tortoise is lonci
lived, some prQbably living over 80 years, and sexual
maturity is not reached until the animal is nea-lv
twenty. This means that the loss of even a single mature'
503 female can have a very significant effect on ~he a~il~ty
of a local population to maintain tself. . (BL~,
chuck~alia, 1986, p. S)
The sensitivity of desert organisms is widely recogni~2-d and has been
discussed in other documents:
Desert organisms, like those in the arctic tunara,
exist on the fringes of the earth's life support systems
by virtue of their tolerance of extreme condizions. To
survive and reproduce, patience and luck are ~e~ui red as
sell. Minor disturbances by man leave alrnos~ perrnanent
scars on the habitat and major protects can be
catastrophic. (Ginsberg, p- 5.)
Once a natural area is destroyed or s~;nificantly
altered by man, it is likely that the animal species
living there ~~~ill also vanish. To only a very limited
extent can animals change habitats because s'~rrcunding
areas often are fully occupied, and he disolaced
animals, pandering on unfamiliar cro~dec ground, sill
tD£LIR, usually die of predatIon, starvation, harassmen:, or
Imperial County C~eneral Plan
PAGE 172 Show Image
climatic extremes. additionally, many animal populations
(
are readily susceptible to disruption and extinction
because they exist in discontinuous and isolated
populations. (Ginsberg, et al, p. 15.)
The sensitivity of desert organisms is in part attributable to
the relative neL~ness of the desert as discussed by Dr. Daniel
~xelrod of U.C, Davis during the 1978 8LM CDC~ advisory committee
503 meetin~~~: desert. is itself brand nets. It is no older than
10,000 years and probably even younger than that. It
has taken some 70 million years to develop many of these
taxi which are. . living together in a very precarious
r.elation. There is very little eater. They are
perfectly adjusted to the present conditions, but think
of the desert in another sense. This is really rust like
a brand new b:~by. It jUst got here. We have to take
care of it if ~ are going to have it. (BLM 1978, p.7.)
7. The courts have required an analysis of environmental effects,
.ncludina cum~ilative impacts of:
future expansion or operation if there is credible an~
substantial evidence that (I) it is a reasonabi7
foreseeable consequence of the initial project and (2)
the future expansion or operation will likely change rhe
score or nature of the initial project or L t:~
(
environmental effects. (47 C.~d 376 396-3?3, K
Qpu n.t;Y~f.f3~C.J~~. By~eay y. Cit~ of Hanford (1990) 22L C.~.3d
692, 733; 270 C.R. 650.)
504
Using these criteria combined with the fact th~?~t the
~r~vironrnental analysis discussing "existing conditions" under the
subheading for Solid Waste the DEIR included discussion of the wo
l.3rge privately-owned regional landfills, the DEIR must then
discuss cumulative impacts of the proposed regional landfills on
the east; side of the County in addition to the impacts of the
mining operations. again, there is the very serious question of
why the DEI~ includes details of the "proposed" regional landfills
in its discussion of existing conditions. What is the explanation?
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS DISCIJSSION RE FUTURE WATER ~V~IL~BILITY FOR
DEVELOPMENT BASED ON GROUNDWATER RESOURCES IS MISSING
1. In addition to the above failure to discuss landfill related
cumulative impacts, the DEIR fails to discuss the cumulative
impacts, both short-term and long-term of water usage for dust
505 control at two potential large scale landfills located to the east
of the lID service area. Since groundwater is used at the existing
Mesquite gold mine for mining operations, should one presume that
water for dust control and construction at the proposed Mesquite
Landfill would also be groundwater? If so, would the groundwater
D~IR, Imperial County General Plan 64
PAGE 173 Show Image
be from sells drilled in close proximity to the project site, or
could the landfill operations rely on groundwater supplied by
pipeline from the same Lulls supplying the gold mine? The DEIR
505 should include discussion of the cumulative impacts of this
proposed landfill, since the DEIR/DEIS is scheduled for public
release sometime during the spring of l99~.
What is the proposed source of L~ater for use at the proposed
Chocolate Mountain Regional Landfill? If from groundL~ater, could
it be from the same groundwater basin? If so, the DEIR should
include a discussion of the individual impacts and the cumulative
impacts of both landfills and the mining operations on the
groundwater basin. If the preparers of the DEIR assert that there
is insufficient data or that information ~as not readily assessable
becau~se of time or budget constraints, a 1937 decision by the 9th
Circuit Court of appeals clarifies the position a government agency
itiusi; take when there is *:3n insufficiency of data provided:
If 3- government agency has difficulty obtaining
.3de~uate information upon which to make a reasoned
.3ssessment of the environmental impacts of a course of
action, it may not simply negate the existence of these
impacts. Rather, it has an obligation to engage in that
506 is called 3 worst-case analysis. (f~~~~.bow ValJe~
Council v. R
.................egiqn~a ~ For~5~tor (9th Gir. 1987) S;~
F. 2d 810, 817.)
It is not the responsibility c)f other 3.overnmental agencies or
members of the pt.iblic to supply information and analyses that
should have been included in the informational document called the
DEIR f:or the General Plan Update. In Environmental 0lannLn~~and
IflLfO r...m..a...t;¼n..--....-.......-...nt.*y of El DoradO (1982) (131 C..~.3d 350,
C~ouncil v. Cou
354; 182 C.R. 317) the Court faulted the lead agency for failing to
concern itself adequately i~ith the proposed project's effects on
the existing physical ½onditions' in the `actual environment upon
which the project will operate'. The Court noted that the EIR
forced the reader to painstakingly ferret out" information
regarding actual `~physical impacts upon the existing environment
(Id. 357)
3. Do the mining operations use groundwater from the same basins
that are relied on for domestic purposes by any RV parks, existing
communities, future planned communities or scattered residential
uses? What are the cumulative impacts anticipated for the
remaining useful life of the mining operations? Discussion should
507 also include social and economic impacts of mining/ industrial use
of groundwater on other human uses anticipated at full build-out of
the General Plan for lands relying on the same groundwater basin.
What are the cumulative impacts of groundwater use by mining in
addition to the proposed regional landfill(s) and other uses
including commercial recreation.
4. The DEIR fails to identify and focus on the possible
DEIR, Imperial County General Plan
PAGE 174 Show Image
significant impacts of t;he proposed project and the cumulative
(
impacts related to groundwater based development throughout the
County as described by CEQ~ and its guidelines. (CEQ~ Guidelines
Sec. 15126(a), 15130(b) and discussion; Pub. Res. Sec. 21000(a).)
(Refer to the appendix for more detail.)
The greatest emphasis should be placed on those impacts
that ~re the most significant ~nd most likely to occur.
The analysis should clearly identify both direct and
indirect impacts, as they sill occur both in the short-
term and long -term. It should also discuss the
environmental specifics of the affected area; the
resources involved; anticipated physical changes and .~ny
potential related health and safety problems; anticipated
508 alterations to ecological systems and probable resulting
changes in population distribution and concentration, the
human use of the land (including commercial and
residential development). and other aspects of the
resource base _uch as L~ater, scenic quality, and public
services. (CEQ~ Guidelines, Sec. 15126 (a), 15143.)
(Remy, 191)
.~ draft EIR must discuss any significant `cumulative
impacts. (CFQ.~ C,uidelines Sec. 15130.) there the
document concludes that cumulative impacts are not
significant, it should explain the basis for that
conclusion. (Qit.i3~ens t.q Pr~sQrve n.h.? Qia.j v. Count~~' o{
Ventura (2d Dist. 1985) 176 Cal. ~pp. 3d 421, 432 [222
Cal Rptr. 247]. (Remy, p92)
5. During the 11/30-12/2/78 meeting of the California Desert
.~onservation area advisory Committee. Bureau of Land Management, in
Riverside Cal i fornia, ~ panel 0 F so jen tis ts provided informa t ion on
physical attributes of the riohave and Sonoran deserts, an area
including Imperial County. Dr. Richard Jahns noted that 10,000 to
30000 years ;~go the area `.~as czovered ~ th a great chain 01:
509 connected lakes. ~s recently as 17,000 years ago glaciation ~as at;
a maximum. Most of the 9roundL~ater in the desert today is 1: rom
10,000 to 100,000 years old and is not eater that enters the region
nor." (BLM, 1978, p. 7) Dr. Richard Vogl added that most of these
desert aquifers have fossil ~~ater, meaning it ~~as laid down during
the ice age. (BLM, 1978, p. 28.)
6. The DEIR for the General Plan Update fails to provide any
current information on any of the groundwater basins upon `which
various development projects including residential development
could depend. The one basin mentioned at any length referenced
only out-dated information and ignored subsequent monitoring data
510 collected by the agency (USGS) that prepared the orIginal report
and subsequent reports Qrepared by the County `s consultant, Dr.
Huntley. Consequently, the D~IR fails to provide any meaningful
discussion of impacts or cumulative impacts that would result
before or 3t build-out based on the proposed Land Use Plan. Thus,
for major portions of the County subject to the General Plan
DFIR, Tmper~al Cotjnty General Plan 66
PAGE 175 Show Image
J~date, there is an avoidance of all discussion of impacts On
groundwater both locally or regionally. This failure results from
the failure to provide any specific informati6n about other
groundwater basins.
The decision in K City of HanMqrd
(l9~0) 221 C.~.3d 692; 270 C.R. 650 suggests that where projected
impacts questioned are not minor or trivial, the court will require
rigorous analysis and concrete substantial evidence' in order to
uphold EIR conclusions that the impacts of a project are
insignificant. This case is particularly relevant since two of the
major Ki;,p~s~~qpu nt;~~F arm Bureau issues questioner were the impacts
analyses related to groundwater and air quality impacts, two areas
of the D~IR for the this general plan update which are inadequate,
roth *with regard to impacts analysis and discussion of cumulative
impacts. The CEQ~ requirements for discussion of regional
cumul~tive impacts is thwarted by ?:ailure to discuss cumulative
impacts of groundwater based development in Imperial and Riverside
Counties where one groundwater basin from which water is pumped is
located in Riverside County.
In addition to earlier referenced concerns about inadequat;e
diacussion of groundwater resource issues and impacts in this
r~sponse, we cite these additional references to support the
assertion that discussion of cumulative impacts resultin~ from th~~
Qr~po5ed general plan over and above t.he curent impacts *iz
qu I red.
In two court cases specifically relating ;o water, courts
found project SIRs to be inadequate when they ailed to provi~~e
enough information to reasonably assess the project. In 3 long
standing dispute regarding the efforts of the City of Los *~ngeles
to increase its extraction and export of groundwater from the Owens
v~ 1 Icy, the Court .3 ta ted that: ~n FIR may not def i ne a purpose ~O r
a proDect and then remove from consideration those matters
.~ecessary to the assessment of whether the purpose can be
Achieved. (C..n....L~'.. of ~ v. ~ qt L~os ~q~eles (1981) 124 C. ~.
~d 1, 9; 177 C.R.479.)
The ~ court found an EIR inadequate, in part, because
it failed to mention the construction of water delivery facilities,
an essential infrastructure component, which were an integral part
of the proposed project. Because of this omission, some important
ramifications of the proposed project remained hidden from view at
the time the project was being discussed and approved. This
frustrates one of the core goals of ~ (Santia~ Coun~~L~qfl
C Oraq~ (1981) 118 ~ 818, 829-830,; 173
C.R. 602.) The Court continued:
*~Only through an accurate view of the project may
affected outsiders and public decision-makers balance the
proposal's benefits against the environmental cost,
consider mitigation measures, assess the advantage of
OF-IP, Imperial County General Plan
PAGE 176 Show Image
PAGE 177 Show Image
terminating the proposal.. and L~eigh other alternatives
in the balance. ~n accurate, stable and finibe project
description is the sjpe~ue non of an informative and
legally sufficient EIR.~ (QQunty_of_j~ v. C~o~ `sos
s~~sypra, 71 C.~.3d 185, 192-193; SanJja~o_County
saber District v. County of~~Oraq~ (1981) 118 C.~.3d 818,
829-830,; 173 C.R. 602.)
~n another decision related to eater, the Santi~o Court held
that:
The EIR must contain facts and analysis, nob just the
bare conclusions of a public agency. ~n agency's opinion
concerning matters ~~ithin its expertise is of obviou~~
value. but the public and decision-makers, for i~hom ~
~IR is prepared, should also have before them the basis
510 for that opinion 30 as to ena~~e them to make an
Independent; reasoned jud~. men t
rioreover, ev~~ if the eater District does have the
-~bilit'y t;c~ meet the L~ater requirements of the project,
the ~IR is silent ~bout the effect of the delivery of
eater serv~.ce elset~here in the District'3 jurisdiction.
~t; is the adequacy of the ~IR pith ~~jhich ~e are
concerned, nob the propriety of the board of supervisors'
decision to .:`pprove the project. [~]hatever is required
to be considered in .~n ~IR must be in that normal report;
thAt any official miQht have known from other `writings or
oral presentations cannot supply ~~ha t is lacking in the
report - (~nvi ronmen ta I Defense ~und ~nc - v - ~oas tsi~e
..--.............~....-...-.....~
~a te T¼.Q i5t~. (1072) 27 C.~.3d ~95, 706 C104 C.R.
197] - ) (S4n~~ia~g9 C at 831.)
7 Depletion of groundwater resources caused by larger than
anticip-~ted cones of depression created by the proposed project
pumping resul tin'; from increased residential, commercial
recreational, agricultural, mining and/or industrial could lead to
siqnificant ctjmulative impacts: such as L~ell interference,
declining eater levels. saline intrusion, increases costs,
subsidence, and loss of storage capacity. These consequences are
of concern both in the S~ part of Imperial County and the
511 `;round~ater basin in Riverside County from L~hich CV~D supplies
groundL~ater to communi ties along the Sal ton Sea. (Refer to the
.~ppendix for more detail.)
The deeper the ~eii, of course, the higher the energy
costs per acrefoot of ~~ater become. . - - Before an aquifer
is totally depleted of eater, the energy costs of pumping
from it sill become prohibitive. These steeply rising
cost-s can lead to the abandonment of irrigated cropland.
(Sheridan, C~Q, l~81, p 51.)
~e are aware that declining L~ater tables have resulted in
~ abandonment of both farmland and residential uses in both arizona
and NeLl Mexico. Land subsidence is mentioned in the D~IR, but ~as
DF.IR, imperial County General Plan $8
PAGE 178 Show Image
not analyzed in cumulative impacts discussions in relation to the
~nticipa~ed increased pumpage for residential, urban, industrial,
mining, agriculture, and landfill operations in areas there
cumulat;ive impacts may be anticipated, both in Imperial and
Riverside Counties.
Land subsidence caused by groundwater overdraft has been
;3ccompanied by eart;h t:issures and faults in central arizona. These
fissures vary in size, but some fissures measure as much as 25
f3ei; side and 60 feet deep. More than 75 cracks in the earth have
been found in central arizona. (Sheridan , OEQ, 1981, p. 70)
512 One of the long-term consequences of groundwater
overdraft and subsidence that has not received much
~ttenrion is the loss of eater storage capacity. .~s an
if e r system compresses pith the mining of its L~ater,
the .~mount of pore space within it shrinks. Because it
is this very pore space that enables the system to store
~3ter, its storage capacity is therefore greatly
diminished. (Sheridan, CEQ, 1981, p. 51.)
~ ~ systems that have subsided because of overdraw t
~ill never ac:ain be able to hold as much eater as they
did before overdr.~ft began. In such c.~ses in other
.~ords, overuse results in the par r.ial loss of a vaiua~le
nonrenet~.~ble resource. (3heridan, ~ L981 p. 52.) (
Q. (;ener3l Pi~n provisions for increased groundwater based
30ri.culture in the Recreation/Open Spac3 land use category could
,oose major c~imulative impacts and potential off-site impacts on
~o.nsi hive species resulting frofil the use of agricul tur~l chemicals
:~nd dec ii ni ng ~a ter tables. For deep rooted desert vegetation. a
droQ in the eater level either rapidly or ~radually to ~3 depth
beio~ hhe root. one ~i 11 cause loss of vegetative habi tat. Urban
and Recreai;ionsl/Residential development sill create additional
imp~cLs `.~hich c~3nnot be ignored.
513 Mesqui te puts do~£~n a very deep taproot - 50 to 100
feet deep - so its success at the expense of shallot
rooted species such as the cottonwood may signal a
declining eater table because of overdrafting. However,
the pumping of groundwater can cause such a precipitous
drop in the ~-.ater table that even mesquite cannot
survive. In the Santa Cruz Valley, south of Tucson, for
example, about 2000 acres of mesquite forest have died
because of a declining water table. (Sheridan, C~Q, 1981,
p. 66)
CU MUL~TIVF IMPACTS R~ GROUND~~TER BASED ~GRICULTUR~ ON
5141 ;ROuND~~T~R ~U~LITY IS MISSING FROM
D.~IR. Imperial County (~enera1 Plan
PAGE 179 Show Image
In Imperial County, the aoriculture based economy depends
almost entirely on Colorado River Nater supplied by one of the
irrigation districts. Very little agriculture is groundwater
dependent. However, the text of the draft General Plan for the
Recreation/Open Space land use category could specifically
3-uthorize agricultural usage in the groundwater dependent portions
514 of the County that lie beyond the service area of the irrigation
districts. ~ny such agricu1tur.~l developments based on groundwater
~ou1d mcvi tably create impacts from agriculture on the groundwater
resource in addition to the impacts from other usage. The
cumulative impacts on groundwater quantity and quality should be
*~ddressed in the DC IR.
The following list of cumulative impacts on cirounciwater from
:~gri.~~lture is derived t:rom Hammer. It includes, but is not
limited to salt build-up, runoff, infiltration, fer-tili~er and
o,esticide contamination. nitrate contamination, and the need for
prevention, monitoring, snd 3batement of degradation. (See
appendix ~or details.)
It is clear that many agr.cul tual practices increase
the rate of solute leaching t: rorn the aci l , and thus
provide a major source of pollutants. riany of these
pollutants ar~ car r I ~d downwards in to the
groundwater (R riggs p 73
8riggs. citing a 1932 study titled Nitr.3te `reaching to
groundw(~ter st.~tes that the authors concluded that:
the available evidence indicates a cent mu in~~ i;~crease in
levels of nitrate in groundwaters, qarticularl~' from
ar.~ble land, and they .~rgue that this sill result in `the
widespread need for alternative ~ supplies or eater
tr~a tment macil i tiCs, or both, f rem the 1990s onwards'
~learly, therefore, agricultural impacrs upon
groundwater ~-~uality remain an issue of considerable
importance. (8--iggs, p. ?.~0.
Briggs concludes that: `~ need for the future is undoubtedly
to make more explicit the links between agriculture and hydrology,
and to evaluate modern farming practices in the light of their
impact upon water resources.' (8 riggs, p. 231.)
Such links in addition to the potential for declining water
tables and reduced seepage into the San Sebastian Marsh and San
5161 ~elipe Creek ~C~C could have adverse impacts which should be
evaluated in light of the 8LM mandate to manage the ~CEC as
critical habitat for the endangered desert pupfish.
also the linkage between potential agricultural degradation of
54~ groundwater quality and impacts on residential domestic users
downgradient should be evaluated in the cumulative impacts section,
particularly on the east side of the County near Pale Verde and the
DF.~9, Tmperial County General Plan 70
PAGE 180 Show Image
517~Winterhaven/Bard area and could be applicable based on future
rations of agriculture over groundwater basins-
DEIR DISCUSSION OF ~GRICULTUR~L ~ND RECRE~TION~L IMPACTS ON
SENSITIVE SPECIES IS IN~DE~U~TE
1. The DEIR fails to provide ..3dequate discussion ot the location
of and limitations of use near designated critical habitat for the
endangered desert pupfish. The San Sebastian Marsh/San Felipe
Creek Management Plan noted that:
Severe erosion (due to overgrazing), . . dewatering due
to groundwater pumping, and the intpoduc~ion of exotic
*predatory or competitive t~sh species, have severely
reduced the distribution and numbers of desert pupfish in
its native habitat. - -. ~pproximate1y IL miles of San
Felipe Creek, Carrizo \4ash and Fish Creek sash have been
designated as Critical Habitat for the desert; pupfish by
tj5F~S .. also includes a 100 foot riparian buffer zone.
(ELM, 1986-, p.S.)
~gricul tural impacts of groundwater based ~.gricul ture such as
lowered groundwater table or reduced drainage to the Sa(~ Sebastian
Marsh ~r San Felipe Creek Critical Habitat for the desert pupfish
clan reduce available habi tat, dry ~ut the marsh or result in
518 unfavorable summer t;emperatures for the ena~ngered desert ~upf:sh.
(BLM, SSM/SFC (1986) p.S: Seinhart; (L~9Q) p.?7.)
DEIR also fails to discuss the potential impacts of
downgradien t groundwater qua Ii ty seeping in to the San Sebastian
Marsha 3nd San Felipe Creek or degraded groundwater quality
resulting from groundwater based agricultural operations and from
urban/recreational growth and the potential resulting alterations
on the ecosystem as required by CE~~ Guidelines Sec. 15126(a). Ii;
fails to discuss these eater quali ty/i~ater level impact3 on
downgradient vegetation and wildlife resources that could result
prom changes induced in population distribution and concentration
resulting from recreational developments within the
Recreational/Open Space designation. Discussion of these impacts
is required by CE~~ Guidelines Sec. 15126(a). In arizona then
groundwater levels dropped below the root zones of vegetation1 that
vegetation died off, diminishing habitat quality and resulting bn
increased potential for erosion. (Sheridan, 1979.)
2. The DEIR also fails to discuss the potential cumulative
impacts of agricultural activity on the sensitive flat tailed
horned lizard, a Category 1 candidate for federal listing as a
519 threatened species (FTHL). The FTHL is included in ~he September
1992 Exhibit ~ (p. ~-4) appended to the 12/15/92 Settlement
agreement in the court case The Fund for animals v.__Lujan Civ. No.
92-300 (G~C). It is under-stood that the FTHL is expected to be
among those listed within the corning year (`watkins, j9Q~ ) The
DEIR, Imperial County General Plan 71
PAGE 181 Show Image
following information represents the status and concerns related to
the FTHL in Imperial County more accurately t;han Lhe Lext of the
DEIR (p. 111-106, 111-107):
The Flat-tailed horned lizard occurs on undeveloped
desert. IL is most abundant on sandy flats, but does nob
occur in sand dunes. There are five areas of optimal
habitat where the species is known to be relatively well-
represented, including four areas in Imperial County,
California: the Yuha Desert, Superstition Mountain area,
southern East Mesa, and the area around 8enson Dry Lake;
The threats to this species have been documented in
several status reports. about 40 to 25 percent of the
historic habitat in California and arizona, respectively,
has been converted to agriculture, urban development, or
was flooded by the filling of the Salton Sea. In
California, an estimated 95 percent of the remaininq
optimal habitat; is threatened by one or more activities.
- - . - ~ctivities `which adversely affect this species
include conversxon of desert lands to urban and
~ and other use, activi ties
hich di5tlJrb this animal's habitat. Some types of
impacts. such as major highways and canals, form barriers
to movenient These barriers create isolated populations
that e:
PAGE 182 Show Image
not; persistent; but still may have an impact;. .... Drift;
may occur from local spraying. (BLM 1990, p. 10-il.)
~ddit;ionally, habitat fragmentat;ion may result in genetic
isolat;ion. The DEIR discussion of habitat fragmentation fails to
3ddress t;he pot;ent;ial for vastly increased significant effect;s on
sensitive species (FTHL) as a consequence of increased habit;~t
519 fragment;ation. Such fragmentation would occur with t;he development;
of agricult;ure and recreational/residential developments authori:ed
by ~he expansion of the Recreation/Open Space designation wit;hin
t;he habitat of FTHL. The DEIR further fails to 3ddress the habitat
fragmentation o~ desert tortoise habitat that; would result from
increased mining or regional landfill activities proposed to be
loc~ted within the proposed Chuckwalla Habitat; Management; area.
3. The desert tortoise was listed as threatened by USFWS in 4/90.
The existing BLM (;huckwalla Bench ~CEC Management Plan and E~ was
prepared in 3/86 or 4 years before listing. BLM is pr3sently
preparing a Desert Tortoise Habitat Management Plan under NEP~.
The Chuckwalla Bench ~CEC Management Plan described human impacts
520 on declining populations `throughout its range such as vehicle use,
hooting, collection, grazing and mining. The Plan noted that
ehicie use off roads can damage burrows, kill tortoises or destroy
nests .~nd that; repeated use can damage vegetative cover resulting
in reduced L~u.~lity of the h:3bit;at and its carrying capacity ( 81-PI
~o86, CB~CEC p.9).
4. *~mong the habitat issues discussed, several are important
considerations for t;he East; Mesa area, rest Mesa area, and Yuha
c)esert. although the following is from a discussion of the ~THL,
i;he issues are equally applicable to the desert; tortoise.
I. Impacts of Large Scale Surface Disturbances
Large scale surface disturbances cause long term and
often permanent loss of FTHL habitat. ~xa.mples of long
term (but not; necessarily permanent;) habitat; loss include
mineral sale sites... F.xamples of long term permanent
habitat; loss include agricultural development. Impacts
can also include habitat fragmentation due to roads or
other linear constructions. This can reduce the species
521 ability to move from one area to another...........
2. Cumulative Impacts of Small Surface Disturbance
Land use actions (such as new roads or well pads) which
disturb a small acreage of habitat can cause additional
indirect impacts and be cumulatively significant,
.3lthough the original individual disturbance is not
signif icant. These small disturbances can create new
public use patterns by creating access to previously
unused areas.
3. Effectiveness of Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures, which are project modifications or
other actions designed to reduce an adverse impact of a
proposed project, vary greatly in their effectiveness.
DEIR Imperial County Gener-31 Plan 73
PAGE 183 Show Image
* Even pith mitigation, development within habitat of
concern usually results in a temporary or permanent net
521 loss of habitat.
5. Preserve Size and Effectiveness
6. OHV Impacts [see above] (8LM, 1990, p. 11-13)
5. among the recommended actions and discussion contained in the
DEIR re the Recreation/Open Space Land Use Category authorization
of agriculture and commercial recreation including RV parks that
may be incompatible pith BLM policy requirements are the following
BL~ management directives:
3. action: Reduce the effects of OHV use on the FTHL.
Discussion: OHV use directly affects ~THLs and their
habitat, as shoL~n by data gathered in the Yuha and ~est
Mesa areas. ~ction should be taken to reduce the amount
of Category 1 and 2 habitat affected.
Implementation: Through the route of travel review
process, eliminate all routes nat needed for access
ptj rposes. Reduce the number of redundant routes. Pos t
and enforce closures.
Rationale: OHV `jse creates direct and indirect impacts to
both FTHLs and their habitat. (BL~, 1990, p.21.)
14. action: Discour~ge facilities and activities which
concentrate visi t;orz ~fl ~nd *.~djacent ~o Category 1 and ~
habitats.
522 Discussion: Concentrations of visitors directly impact FTHLs
and habitat values. Local extirpations can occur.
Implementation: attempt to relocate proposed facilities
~.nd activities to areas outside Category I and 2 habitat.
Examples include race pitting areas, spectator areas, an~
camping areas.
Rationale: This actxon liii reduce direct impacts
leading to local extirpations. (BLM, 1990, p. 21-22)
F. Goal: Insure perpetuation of habitat supporting
viable FTHL populations Ln all four habitat areas.
26. action: Discourage land disposal or land exchange
which could reduce the amount of public ownership in
Category I and 2 habitats.
Implementation: Discourage the disposal of Category I
habitat. ... (BLM, 1990, p. 26, 27)
~ July 22, 1990 article by P..~. Rice in the Inpi~e~*ial Valley
PLe..s...5.., entitled `It's Getting Closer: `Death March' steps up pace
in search for the flat-tailed horned lizard", echoed the concerns
of the 1990 FTHL Management Plan and consequences of listing as an
endangered species. The caption under the photo of the FTHL
states: "Researchers believe Imperial County's flat-tailed horned
lizard has begun the long slow march to extinction." The article
indicated that "enough information will be gathered on the lizard
DEIR, Imperial County General Plan 74
PAGE 184 Show Image
by the end of 1991 for consideration by the agency as an endangered
species.~ The article sent on:
The downside of listing a creature as endangered is it
may hold up development in the habitat range. Even
developers on private land, 8LM's watkins said, must file
522 project descriptions and biological assessments and can
be required to compensate for the loss. Endangered
status for the lizard may cut down on recreational use in
the Yuha, limit geothermal industry in the East Mesa, and
cramp U.S. 8order Patrol operations. (I.V. Press
7/22/90.)
6. In BLM's discussion of management planned actions in the
East; Mesa ~ildli~e Habitat M-3nagement Plan (198Z, at p. 5), among
the p~roposed actions is:
~2. Initiate ~ land exchange/acquisition program for the
priv3te lands identified on Map 5, page 8-6. Land
exchange is necessary to prevent habitat loss and to
prevent possible impacts of pesticide use L~hen inholdings
are conve-rted to agricultural use. ... - (8LM (198$)
EMWHMP, p.5.)
The included map .3ppears to include all private parcels within the
HMP boundary.
Earlier BL~ documents referencing concerns about agricultural
~mQ~ct3 (~n the ~THL proposed to prohibit pesticide spraying unless
~nd until ~ study proves that it has no negative impacts on the
523 ~l~t-t;a.iled ho--ned lizard or its prey base, the harvester ant.
(BLM, ~981, ~. 5, 20, p7.) The document discusses specifIc
pesticide impacts.
The flat-tailed horned lizard, L~hile never an abundant
species. has become increasingly rare in recent years in
some parts of its range (Turner et al, 1973; Turner et
a..1., 1980). It; has been postulated (Desert Planning
wildlife Staff, pers. comm.) that this decrease in
~bundance has, at least in some areas, been due to
pesticide spraying in and adjacent to prime habitat
areas. Lizard population levels also may be impacted
indirectly by pesticide-related decreases in the
abundance of harvester ants (the lizard's' primary food
ource) It is, therefore, necessary to study both the
direct and indirect impacts of pesticide use. (8LM,
1981. p. 20)
INCRE~~~SED ~GRIOULTURE ~LTERN~TIVE IS NOT FE~SI8LE 8EC~USE IT
IS INCDMP~TIBLE PITH FEDERAL M~N~GE~1ENT PLANS ~ND POLICIES/
1973 PLAN ALSO NOT ~ FE~SI8LE ~LTERN~TIVE
524 The language of the BLM East Mesa ~HMP (1983) stands in sharp
contrast to the text of the `Increased .~griculture ~lternative' to
the Count;y's proposed Land Use Plan. BLM's watkins and Kostol have
indicated that the BLM policies related to East; mesa ~HMP have not
DEIR, Imperial County General Plan 75
PAGE 185 Show Image
changed. Therefore the language of D~IR IX-8 assertion
specifically referencing the Cast Mesa area in the proposed Land
Use Plan and stating ~that agriculture would also be allowed in
this area under the Recreation/Open Space designa~ion~, when in
fact the vast majori~y' of land in the East Mesa is public land
administered by the BLtl. (DEER, ~>(-8.) The DEIR erroneously
asserts that: The agriculture designation would not conflict with
the underlying BLM designations and, in fact, is consistent with
524 the existing designation of this area as General ~griculture.
Therefore, limited adverse land use effects are anticipated.
(DEIR, Ix-8.) The failure to review all applicable ~CEC and
wildlife habitat management plans available at the El Centro
Resource area office resulted in inclusion of an infeasible,
unrealistic increased ~gricul ture alternative Plan totally
inconsistent with publicly distributed BLM stared management
actions
~urthermore. the permitted uses 35 spelled ou~ in the Draft
General Plan Update for the Land Use Element, Recreation/Open Space
land ijse category (GP, LUE p. 45 46) ~re inconsistent and
incompatible with stated.BLM policy. The General Plan discussion
of the Recreation/fl. pen Space Land Use Category includes the
following misleading information:
Some areas designated Recreation/Open Space contain
soils suitable for agriculture, such as th~ ~ and `rest
Mesas and Pilot Knob Units of rmper.~ai tr-~ijation
District, which are predominantly owned by the bureau of
Land Management and not presently improved for
agricultural cropland. Other areas designated
525 Recreation/Open Space may be suitable ~o'. a(~uaculture
particularly there favorable groundwater conditions
exist. agricultural uses are, therefore permitted in the
Recreation/Open Space category. (OP, LUE, p. 45.)
Under the Recreation/Open Space *~gricultural Land Use
Standards (OP, LUE, p. 46) L5 the statement that: *~gricultural
uses are prohibited in areas designated by BLM as ~~reas of
Critical Environmental Concern. This statement is inconsistent
with the text on the previous page, since the majority of the
previously referenced East Mesa area is public land within the East
Mesa ~CEC.
The term ~CEC or area of Critical Environmental Concern is one
with special reference to federal lands managed by BLM. The
California Desert Conservation area Plan citing the federal Land
Policy and Management ~CT (~LPM~) Sec. lO~(a) d~~fines ~CEC as:
an area ... within the public lands where special
526 management attention is required (when such areas are
developed or used or where no development is required) to
protect and prevent it-reparable damage to Important
historic, cultural, or scenic values, fish and wildlife
resou roes, or other na tu ra 1 Systems or processes, or to
DEIR, Imperial County General Plan 76
PAGE 186 Show Image
protect life and safety from natural hazards.
The ~CEC designation is more than a recognition
program; it is a process for determining that special
management certain important environmental resources or
hazards require, and making a commitment to provide this
management.. - The requirements are site-specific.
(BLM 1980, p.l2~.)
BLM ~CEC designations apply to public lands and not to private
lands because 8LM planning authority is for federal laqds only, and
not private lands adjacent to or surrounded by BLM ~C~Cs. Lands
surrounded by public l;~nds are considered to be "inholdings'~, often
considered desirable for acquisition by BLM to facilitate
526 management and reduce incompatible land uses on private lands, as
notes in the east Mesa ~HMP (p.5). 8LM mapping efforts have
historically been prepared to clearly delineate which lands are
public lands subject to BLM management and which lands are private
lands subject to County planning authority. Consequently the
inclusion of an agricultural prohibition on BLM lands could serve
to convey the impression that agriculture could be prohibi ted on
private lands adjacent to or surrounded by BLM ~CECs. If the
intent. had been to prohibit agriculture on private lands adjacent
to or surrounded by a. BLM ~ this clarification could have been
m~.~de since both Harmon and R~LM staff made t;hat specific request for
ci:~rific~tion and compatibility with existing 8LM HMPs -3nd
pa i cies -
DF.IR failure to .~ddress the potential impacts resulting from
agricultural uses wi thin the various land use categories adjacent
to or overlapping BLM ~CECs (managed in part for sensitive species)
results in an ~.1R which must be considered inadequate when measured
by C~Q~ and CS~~ Guideline standards in addition to being
inadequate and unacceptable when contrasted to relevant court
decisions. although D~IR Fig. 12 and i; (D~IR p. 111-109, III-
527 iii) depict historic and current ranges of the FTHL, preparers of
the DEIR apparently failed to review applicable 8LM management
test. That failure resulted in Draft General Plan text and DEIR
discussion which fails to understand the importance of impacts from
various activities and the associated cumulative impacts of
agricultural activities when viewed together with impacts from
geothermal activities and recreation/off highway vehicle activity
in the vicinity of sensitive wildlife habitat.
The DEIR discussion does `snot reflect *~a conscientious effort
to provide ptjblic agencies and the general public with adequate and
relevant information about cumulative impacts. (San ~ranciscans
for Reasonable Growth v. C~t~andffiquni;y of San Francisco (1984)
528 1~Y?FF~. ~d 61, 79; 198 C.R. 6~4; cited in Remy, 231.) Further,
the DEIR discussion of potential agricultural activities in the
East Mesa and VJest Mesa areas indicate that the lead agency and its
consultant did not use reasonable efforts to discover, disclose,
:~nd discuss related past, present, and huture projects, including
DEIR, Imperial County General Plan 77
PAGE 187 Show Image
those under reviet~ by other agencies. (CEQ~ Guidelines Discussion
re Sec. 15130.) To fail to consider impacts on FTHL and FTHL
habitat when the DEIR acknowledges that the FTHL is a Category I
candidate for listing and press articles have indicated listing may
come within the year and when 8LM has prepared several HMPs
specifically referencing the FTHL ,-enders the DEIR inadequate. If
528 the Program EIR is to be adequate for tiering of future projects a
comprehensive, detailed, and complete analysis of impacts including
cumulative impacts is essential. Failure to provide the CEQ~
required information .~bout potential cumulative impacts on
~ensi tive species such ~s the FTHL, desert tortoise, and desert
pupfish could render a Program EIR inadequate and unacceptable ~or
consideration of future projects.
DEIR DTSCUSSION OF CUMULATIVE IMPACTS THERE ENVIRONMENTAL
PRO8LEMS .~LRE.~DY EXI.~T IS IN~DE~U~TE OR MISSING
I. The Ki ngs County Farm Bureay Court stressed the duty of an
EIR not to attempt to minimize the cumulative impacts of a project
by limiting the discussion to the specific protect rather than
considertng the combined `collectively 3ignificant impacts of all
related or relevant projects. The Court rejected the city's
3ccept.ance of an EIR which :~L.tempted to ninimize cumulative impacts
on groundwater and air quality ~wo issues inadequately discussed
in Imperi~l Couni;y':~ G~~neral Plan Update DEIR.
The Kip~s~Coun t....y.....F.M3 -2.m ~ureay' decision noted that the with
respect to discussion of cumulative impacts, the courts:
must interpret the (;uidelin~s to ..~fford the fullest
possible protection to the environment. (Friends of
.............- *if~q Q~ y1972) B Cal. 3d p47,
Mammoth v...Bqard..qf ~~uper"
259-~60 p104 Cal. ~ptr. 761, 502 P.2d 1Q49].). One
commentator has addressed the purQose of the cumulative
impacts analysis: One of the most important
529 environmental lessons evident prom past experience is
that environmental damage 0 r ten occurs inc remen tally ~ rom
a variety of small sources. These sources appear
insignificant, assuming threatening dimensions only when
considered in light of the other sources with which they
interact. Perhaps the best example is air pollution
where thousands of relatively small sources of pollution
cause a serious environmental health problem. (Kings
yqunt.*y~Farm Bureay, supra, at 720)
`This judicial concern often is reinforced by the
results of cumulative environmental analysis; the outcome
may appear startling once the nature of the cumulative
impact problem has been grasped. (Selmi The Judicial
Development of the California environmental duality ~ct
(1984) 18 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 197, 244, fn. omitted.)
~ ~ at 720.)
\4e agree with the foregoing .~ssessment of a cumulative
r)EIR, Imperial County C,eneral Plan 78
PAGE 188 Show Image
impacts analysis. ~`Je find the analysis used in the EIR
and urged by G~F avoids analyzing the severity of the
problem and allows the approved of projects which, when
taken in isolation, appear insignificant, but when viewed
together, appear startling. Under GWF's *~ratio' theory,
t;he greater t;he overall problem, the less significance a
project has in a cumulative impacts analysis. I~e
conclude the standard ~or cumulative impacts analysis is
529 defined by the use of the term `collectively'significant
in Guidelines section 15355 and the analysis must assess
the collective or combined effect of . -. [the project].
The EIR improperly hocused upon the individual project'
relative effects and omitted facts relevant to an
analysis of the collective effect this ~nd other sources
*will have on air quality. (Kjqgs~~Co~J n~ty~Farm Bureau v.
Qity of Hanford (1990) 221 C.~.3d 692, 720, 721; 270 C.R.
650.)
_ The Draft Program EIR for the General Plan Update similarly
fails to analyze the potential ~or significant cumulative impacts
on sensitive wildlife groundwater resources, and air quality in
.3ddition to inadequate discussion of other cumulative impacts.
8ecause the DEIR contains so little useful information about
important BLM management plans and groundwater basins relied upon
~or present and future development, one cannot determine from the
DEIR if the ilissing information (related to BLM management;
nandates mining and landfill groundwater `jsage and wildlife
impacts, domestic, agricultural, industrial, and commercial
recreational usage of groundwater and wildlife and habitat impacts)
530 would have revealed a more severe impact and more significant
cumulative collectively significant impacts. One court case said
it well:
~ccordingly the EIR [DETR in this case] is inadequate.
To conclude otherwise would place the burden of producing
relevant environmental data on the public rather than the
agency and would allow the agency to avoid an attack on
the adequacy of the information contained in the report
simply by e~cluding such information. ~
Bureau v. Cit~y of Hanford (1990) 221 C~~.3d 692, 723; 270
C.R. 650.)
3. DEIR discussion of air quality impacts and cumulative impacts
on air quality is inadequate. The DEIR statement in the discussion
of Cumulative Tmpacts on air quality attempts to minimize the
existing and future problems by stating that:
This impact would be mitigated to below a level of
531 significance through implementation of the General Plan
~ir duality Element and application of Best available
Control Technologies~ (B~CT) as required by local air
pollution control districts and State and federal
agencies. (DEIR \4-5)
Such statements are not reflective of the current requirements of
DETP* imperial County C~eneral Plan 79
PAGE 189 Show Image
law. Furthermore, this discussion ignores the fact that the County
does no~ have and, indeed, has not submitted a draft ~ir duality
element. for public review. additionally the Cumulative impacts
discussion fails to consider ~he regional air quality existing
problems in the environmental analysis section which referenced air
531 pollution in Mexicali, located in ~he same air basin, bu~ just
across the international border. Environmental impacts do not
recognize international borders, and therefore must be fully
considered for a legally sufficient and adequate EIR to be
pre~ared. (See 3/17/93 I.i~erial__vaffly-le Press article on air
quality enforcement and monitoring in Imperial County.)
Fw. Missing cumulative impacts relat:ive to groundwater basins,
532t with or without acknowledged environmental problems was noted in a
Lre~ieious comment.
DEIR FAILS TO INCLUDE ~DE~U~TE DISCUSSION OF THE ECONOMIC ~ND
SOCI.~L IMPACTS OF INCREASING DEVELOPMENT NEAR THE BORDER
*:~here appropriate; a draft DEl should contain discussion of
~ economic and social impacts of a proposed proJect...............there
~n IR does identify significant environmental effects, however,
~l~~ed economic and social impacts are not irrelevant. (Remy,
Remy summarizes a number of considerations r~1ated to soci~:l
n~ economic impacts of physiOdl changes to the e~ist;ing community.
Tqc~~~sin9 development to the east of the existing city of
~l~xico, the pcoposed new East Border Crossing, and r'~(~uested
ommercial corridors will likely significantly alter the existing
economic situation in the present downtown of Calexico in addition
t;o :.~1tering traffic patterns in the area. [T3he lead agency
~hould consider the [potential] physical deterioration of downtown
irea to t;he extent that potential is demonstrated to b~ an indirect
~Ffect to the proposed' development of new commercial areas several
niles to the east of the existing commercial areas. `The
requirement to consider such secondary and mdi rect environmental
?r~ects is mandatory. (Remy, 234, citing CE~~ Guidelines Sec.
L51~l and Citizens for Sensible Dev?lopment of Bifishop area V.
Countyof_Inyo (1985) 172 C.~.3d 151, 170; 217 C.R. 393.F
In the present DEIR1 the brief discussion (in the section on
c3rowth inducement) of such potential socioeconomic impacts so close
~o the international border is sadly inadequate. ~dditionally1
there ~s no discussion of the social and economic impacts on the
jrban centers of other cities further north of the border, even
though there has been such discussion during public meetings.
2. DEIR discussion of cumulative impacts and growth inducing
impacts of proposed new four lane roads and transit corridor from
5.~4 the international border going north is inadequate. The proposed
road improvements will have environmental impacts in addition to
both social and economic impacts on changing transportation1
DEIR, Imperial County General Plan 30
PAGE 190 Show Image
commercial, housing, and employment opportunities and patterns.
The proposed Land Use Plan and the agriculture and development
alternative plans for considerable development both east and north
534 of Calexico in the area of the border. These changes will have
impacts related not only to Calexico, but to the other cities of
the County and to the nearby unincorporated community of Heber, all
of which must be addressed in detail in the DEIR. Consequently the
out-dated 1990 Housing Element (with its 1989-1994 horizon) which
was not accepted by the State could not be consistent with the
proposed changes, nor should it be referenced for relevant
information on housing related to the Land Use Element of the
General Plan Update. These circumstances necessitate an immediate
revision o~ the Housing Element to assure internal consistency
535 *?~mong~ the elements of the General Plan. Therefore both the Draft
&~eneral Plan Update and DEER are inadequate in attempts to relate
growth inducing impacts of the General Plan Update to available and
projected housing discussed in the Housing Element. Thus, no
discussion of the potential cu[nulative impacts related to social
and economic issues could be current or adequate as required by
CEQ~ Guidelines.
in the discussion following CEQ~ Guidelines Sec. 15131 is the
following notation:
~)nd~r the interpretation provided in this section,
effects on r;.~cilities or services are not automatically
rec:~'rded as signif5.cant effects of a project. The
ch~3nc~es must be rel~~ ted to or caused by physical changes.
If the project causes a direct physical change in a
~~cili ty by pumping ground water and causing around
settling under the facility, the resulting deterioration
c~n aasily be regarded as a significant effect. It: the
project causes physical changes that affect the use of
the f~cility, the effects on the use maybe considered a
significant effect in the same ~ay as increases in
tr.~ffic are often treated as significant effects. (CEn~~
Guidelines Sec. 15131 Discussion.)
536 In Qi tj~ens association for Sensible Development ot
Sjshop ~rea V. In~o (1985) 172 Cal. app. 3d 151, the
court held that economic or social change may be used to
determine that physical change shall be regarded as a
signiricant effect of the environment. Where a physical
change is caused by economic or social effects of a
project, the physical change may be regarded as a
significant effect in the same manner as any other
physical change resulting from the project.
alternatively, economic and social effects of a ph"~ical
change may be used to determine that the physic3l change
is a significant effect on the environment. In this
case, the Court held that an ~IR for a proposed shopping
center located away fom the downtown shopping area must
discuss ~ potential economic an~ social consequences of
t;he project, if the proposed center `could take business
f)EIR, Imperial County General Plan 31
PAGE 191 Show Image
away from the downtown and thereby cause business
closures and eventual physical deterioration. (CEQ~
Guidelines Sec. 15131 Discussion.)
3. In portions of the County where present and tuture development
will continue to rely on groundwater rather than surface water from
the Colorado River, the groundwater basins could, and in some cases
undoubtedly will, experience changes in groundwater levels and
water quality as the mcvi table consequence of increased
pumping/groundwater extraction in this desert setting for use by
industry, agriculture, residential, and commercial recreation.
Degraded water quality, increased costs of pumping, subsidence and
loss of storage capacity have all been the consequences of
537 extractive groundwater pumping and have been e'
PAGE 192 Show Image
L~hether the selection and discussion of alternatives favors
informed decision-making and informed public participation. The
EIR must contain facts and analysis, not jusb the agency's bare
conclusions or opinions. ~n EIR must include detail sufficient to
enable those who did not participate in its preparation ~o
understand and consider meaningfully the issues raised by the
proposed project. I~ is the project proponents' responsibility to
provide .~dequate discussion of alternatives. (Laurel HeI~hts.., supra
at 376-406 paraphrased. ~or more detail see the appendix.)
The decision in Citi ens of Goleta__Va~ey~v. 8oard of
~yp.?r.~;sors (1990) 52 C.3d 553, 568; 276 C. R. 410 (G.91eta__II)
further noted that the (iuty of identifying and evaluating
potentially feasible project; alternatives lies with the proponent
3nd ~he lead agency, not the public.
The ~ ?j..~h ts Court requ i red the Regents to prepare a new
.~T.R, but believing the existing activities would be mitigated, and
that the nature of the ongoing medical research to be an important
rontribution to. the state of medical knowledge, it believed that
CF~~ would not be thwarted by allowing UCSF to continue research
.~ci~ivities while preparing a new ~IR in compliance with ~ The
Court did, however, note that UCSF might not expand existing
I op.er-~f~ions or begin ne'.~ operations while a new ~IR was being
prepared. But the Court was *.~trict in the guidelines it laid down.
539 Having failed to comely with ~ in the first instance,
(
t;i~ey Cthe Regents] canno; fairly complain o~ any burden
in preparing a new ~IR or a restriction on expansion
might impose on them.
The Regents must begin anew the analytical process
requied under ~ (L.3urel.. .HLejL~Lt~.~su~ra, at 425.)
Local governments must. confront, evaluate, and resolve
competing environmental social and economic interests.
The planning process necessarily compels cities and
counties to consider .~l ternative land-use goals,
policies and implement.at;ion measures. ~s explained in
the Office of Planning and Research, General Plan
Guidelines: ~ general plan must address the issues
associated with a jurisdiction `5 physical development.
5uch issues concern the general locations, appropriate
mixtures, timing and extent of land uses and supporting
infrastructure. They pertain to the physical nature of
a jurisdiction's environment. The broad scope of
physical development issues rahges from appropriate areas
for building factories to open space for preserving
scenic vistas. (.GqLejaj;~~si~.~a at p. 571,)
In preparing its range of reasonable alternatives to the
project or to the location of the project, which could feasibly
attain the basic objectives of the project, and evaluate the
oomparat~ve merits of the ~lternatives' as required by CEQ~
DEIR, Imperial County General Plan 33
PAGE 193 Show Image
Guidelines Sec. 15126(d), the County and its consultant seem not to
have focused on any alternatives capable of eliminating any
significant adverse environmental effects or reducing them to a
level of insignificance. (CEQ~ Guidelines, Sec. l5l26(d)(~), Pub
Res. Sec. 21002.)
539 CFQ~ Guidelines Sec. 15126(d)(l) suggests that: ~f there is
~ specific proposed project or preferred alternative, [the D~I~
must] explain L~hy the other alternatives were rejected in favo of
the proposal if they were considered in developing the proposal.
It is apparent that the DEIR preferred project is the Proposed
Land Use Plan' which is discussed at length, but: the D~¶.R never
clearly explains the County's preference for the preferred General
Pl3n Update's "Proposed Land Use Plan.
~NCRE~SED AGRICULTURE ~LTERN~TIVE IS INFEASIBLE rEND
UNREALISTIC
The DEIR fails to consider recent trends and information
preQa red by another governmental agency and which i t should have
identified .3nd considered in developing alternatives. In f3iling
a review the BLM Plan ~mendments and map changes adopted since the
oriomal California Desert Conservation ~re~ Plan of 1980, and
:~j l mg to r~view the adopted BLM management plans for the var iou3
~CECs, habitat management plar~s, and *~ildlife habitat m~naqement
plans, the preparer3 of the Increased ~(3ricul tur3 ~l ternative hav2
drafted an unrealistic, infeasible alternative zhat calls for
removing land in the East Mesa area from t;he Recreation/Open Space
land use designation and designating the area for `General
.~griculture' (DEIR, IX-8). To ignore the pattern of land ownership
with pLiblic lands administered by BLM and managed with ~pec~al
reference to a sensitive species, a Category I candidate for
listing under the Endangered Species ~ct does not satisfy the CE~~
Guidelines Sec. 15l26(d)(~) requirement for discussion ~ocusinq on
eliminating environmental impacts. The Increased agriculture would
540 significantly increase irnp~cts on sensitive wildlife and proposed
expansion of irrigated agriculture on lands not available for uch
uses, lands proposed for acquisition by 8Ltl in its East ~esa ~HMP.
DEIR Increased agriculture alternative is not feasible or
reasonable because it is incompatible with adopted ~LM .~CEC and
wildlife habitat management plans and adopted plan amendments. BL~
lands in the East Mesa are not available for irrigated agriculture
as set forth in the "Increased agricultural ~lternative~, so the
Increased ~griculture ~lternative is not a feasible alternative as
required by OE~~ Guidelines. See CDC~ Plan, map ~l7 which shows
the East Mesa ~CEC p70, and the legend which indicated that the
East mesa ~CEC is so listed as flat tailed horned lizard (FTHL)
habitat
The 1985 BLM Plan amendment ~2 (Record of Decision (ROD) 1/87,
p. 6-7) extended the prohibition of agriculture (other than
()EIR Imperial County General Plan
PAGE 194 Show Image
livestock grazing) to all BLM lands in the California Desert except;
on unclassified lands. The amendment states:
The Federal Land Policy and management; act; of 1976
(FLPM~) sets forth the principle that public lands are to
be retained in public ownership and managed for the
public good.......
The Desert Plan, in its zoning system, intended that
ret;ention lands which were in multiple use classes would
be maintained in essential wildland character, except as
authorized under specific lease, permit or grant.
~gricultural use is not generally one of those kinds of
aut;horized uses. Furt;her, agricultural use contemplates
disposal of land from Federal ownership.
There are no unclassified lands in .~CECs (~atkins 1993),
consequently no federal lands are available for 3griculture in the
E.3s t Mesa.
540
Further, the BLM has included proposed management actions for
the acquisition of private lands within the ~CEC to afford better
FTHL habitat management. among BLM's East; Mesa ~`ildlife Habitat
Management; Plan (1983) management; *~planned actions is a `land
exchange/acquisition program" which states that: "Land exchange is
necessary t;o prevent; habitat; loss and to prevent possible impacts
of pesticide use when inholdings are converted to agricultural
use. (East Mes.-3 WHMP, [983, p. 5.)
consequently, the t~P-C/GSE (p. 28) assert;ion that t~~e lands
"suitable ~or cultivation" in t;he East; Mesa and West t1es~ (also
~THL habitat) represent; "potential irrigable lands [which] present
.~ ~aluable future resource which should be protected" for potential
tuture agriculture is incompatible with the pattern of federal
ownership and 3LM's proposed management; act;ions ?:or acquisition 01:
pri/ate inholdings to manage for FTHL habitat.
~NCRE~SED DEVELOPMENT ~LTERN~TIVE ~s UNRE~LI.~TIC
The Increased Development alternative is unrealistic and
proposes potent;ial growth in the Ocotillo and Nomirage area
overlying the limited groundwater resources where USGS data on
water quality in one monitored well near the fault shows increasing
chloride levels. The probable cause of the water quality changes
has not yet been determined, but; is presumed to be related DO the
large cone of depression created by existing residential and
541 industrial pumpage dictated by the pattern of federal and private
land ownership. Residents overlying the Ocotillo-CoycDe `sells
groundwater basin rely on this sole source aquifer with very
limited recharge.
To suggest an alternative which includes increased intensity
of residential development based on a groundwater resource with
documented developmental constraints could hardly be considered
DEIR, imperial County General Plan 85
PAGE 195 Show Image
prudent planning. Similarly1 such a proposal could serve only to
increase environmental impacts, causing social and economic impacts
resulting from changes in eater availability and eater quality.
None of Lhe environmental impacts related to groundwater issues,
issues which have been discussed in studies jointly funded by
Imperial County, were even ment;ioned in the discussion of
541 environmental impacts of the Increased Development alternative.
Because impact;s are ~ot3lly L~nored in ~he discussion of
alternatives does not mean they are not widely acknowledged by
local residents and County officials. Such a superficial
discussion of that proposed alternative renders the Increased
Development alternative unreasonable and inadequate for the
purposes of CEQ~ review.
additionally, the Increased L'eveloprnent alternative calls for
increased acreage in the S~ part of the County to be placed in the
Recreation/Open space land use category `.~hich would authorize more
intensive commercial recreation and agricultural uses in areas near
the Yuha Desert ~CEC, areas containing critical habitat for the
flat-tailed horned lizard. The listed authorized uses would have
the potential for off-site impacts from agriculture, commercial
recreation and off-highway vehicle use that pose threats to the
FTHL and are incompatible wi th SLM management concerns. Likewise,
both commercial recreation and agriculture based on groundwater
would place additional imo~cts on the cjroundwater basin with
?-.`(-22.) How could increased
groundwater based development relying on a basin with known
resource constr~ints result in virtually identical impacts to
those produced by a substantially reduced set of demands on the
basin?
There is inadequate discussion of the social and economic
5431 impacts on other cities created by the proposed increase in
development near Calexico.
THE `NO PROJECT£'/1973 PLAN I~ IN~~~SIBLE ~ND UNREALISTIC
1. The No Project *~lternative (DC-IR p. IX-22 et. seq.) is not a
feasible alternative because it designates the federally managed
lands of the East Mesa for intensive irrigated agriculture. This
544 is not feasible for the same reason the Increased agriculture
alternative is not feasible or realistic: incompatibility with
federal management policy and patterns of landownership.
2. additionally, the 1973 Plan, the No Project is not realistic
or feasible because the p973 Land Use Plan (DEIR rig. 3, p. ¶11-5)
DEIR. Imperial County (;ener3l Plan 86
PAGE 196 Show Image
shows planned urban centers and rural residential areas in
(
locations where substantial amounts of the lands so designated as
urban or residential are public lands, for example in the Ocotillo
area, near the Fort Yuma indian Reservation, east of the Salton
Sea, and north of the Chocolate Mountains. It also maps additional
tinrealistic heavy industrial land use category including expansion
of industrial .3ct;ivities onto federal lands in the Plaster City
area, on public lands northwest of the mostly vacant lands of
545 Felicity, and a large area used for irrigated agriculture north
of Seeley along the New River. No additional heavy industry has
moved into any of these sites since that plan was adopted in 1973.
The 1973 plan also projects large areas of predominantly public
lands to be used for `desert residential use surrounding the
Ocoti~llo townsite, ~djacent to the Chocolate Mountains gunnery
range and west of irrigated agriculture to the west and northwest
of ~Jestmorland.
3. In reality, the 1973 plan is one that calls for even more
urban and industrial development than either of the proposed
alternatives but because the land proposed for such development is
not privately owned 3uch'development in addition to the infeasible
proposed agricultural e.~pansion into the east Mesa make the No
Project also `3 non-project, or infeasible alternative under ~
C~Q~ Guidelines Sec. ~5i2~(d)(5) provides an uncomplicated
path to follow in selecting a r.~n~e of reasonable alternatives to
(
546 `:?. proposed project, in this case, an alternative lane use plan.
(5) the range of .3lternatives required in an ~IR is
governed by `~rule of reason that requires the EIR to set
forth only those alternatives necessary to permit
reasoned choice. The key issue is whether the selection
and discussion of alternatives fosters informed decision-
making and informed public participation. ~n ~IR need
not consider an alternative whose affect cannot be
reasonably ascertained and whose implementation is remote
and speculative. ~ Guidelines Sec. 15126(d)(5).)
~. Using the criteria of the ~ Guidelines Sec. 15126(d), the
discussion of all three alternatives (including the no project'
1973 plan) cannot be implemented either because of land ownership
constraints, federal policy and management plans, and or
groundwater resource constraints that prohibit the build-out
development of each alternative. ~t issue is whether the proposed
land use plan or any alternatives can accommodate growth associated
547 with the implementation of the plan. In comparing alternatives,
the DEIR compares end results of anticipated build-out under each
alternative rather than comparing the anticipated development with
the existing conditions on the ground and taking into consideration
the variotjs environmental impacts. In essence, the DEIR for the
proposed General Plan Update focuses more on quantity of build-out,
whereas CE~~ mandates a greater emphasis on consideration ~or the
quality of the environment. The Courts have held that: `The
D~IR Imperial County ~en~~ral Plan 87
PAGE 197 Show Image
Legislative history of [C~Q~] also supports the vies that
environmental values are to be assigned treater height than the
needs of economic growth ~ The act thus requires decision makers
to assign greater priorities to environmental than economic needs.
[Citations] (Remy, 9.)
One Court, in analyzing the impacts of a general plan
jmendrnent, found that the county:
should have used existing conditions on tJL.~~~eLound as the
starting point of its environmental analysis. The agency
~ronqly compared environmental conditions under build-out
of the proposed ne~ plan ~£Jith conditions that eventually
could exist under build-out of the existing plan. Under
4;he Court's reasoning, the agency ~as prong simply to
conclude that; the ne~~ plan L~as environmentally superior
to the old one and that build-out under the ne~ could be
better than build-out under the old- Rather, the ~
should have analyzed hoLe build-out under the ne~~'~ plan
could affect the existing environment. (Rerny, 224-22w,
citing ~..yjLLn.jimen~al Planninq and information Council v.
Qounty of ~l ~orado (i9S2) l~1 C.(~..3d ~5O, ;~4-~55; 132
Q..I~. 31.7.)
P F.P~UF.~?~T n...s:R ~N~L~Y7~ ~~~SIBL~ ~ ~LTFRN~T:v~~
The ;0fl5C r\'..?. t ion Committee requests that a supplemental ~~iP
or a subsequent n~IR analyze a number of ne~~ alternatives
.nc~udin(g' but not limited to:
L. (~n aiternat~ve L~hich could be based on policies that are the
iflOS t; pro ~ec tive of the environment, Including po fur the r
degradation or further depletion of groundwater resources and no
548 encroachment into critical habitat areas designated by other
agencies. This alternative should avoid development in hazardous
~reas including steep slopes, flood~ays and floodplains, anc
landslide areas i and there applicable. he location, type,
building Lnt;ensity and population density of this alternative
should follow careful mapping of resource, ownership, management
directives for other agencies, and infrastructure constraints.
2. ~n alternative which better responds to the significant
impacts identified in the supplemental ~~IR or subsequent DE:R. `~e
believe that there are additional significant impacts raised in
this response to the ~~TR that should be analyzed and addressed by
this alternative. This alternative should define areas `.~hich have
;49 si~e-spec~ic constraints to development, including, but not
limited to: critical habitat for a sensitive, threatened or
endangered species; hazardous areas such as floodL'4ays, floodplains,
or proximity to tank farms; surface eater features and marshlands,
state parks and ~~jildlife management areas, including 3L~ ~C~Cs and
J designa ted habitat management areas; ~a tershed and recharge areas;
imperial Cotinry general 9lan 88
PAGE 198 Show Image
groundwa ~e r resou roe cons ~rai n ~s; ~~ate r qua ii ty and ~a ~e r quantity
limit3tions; drainage patterns; patterns of federal, state, Tndian,
*~nd private ownership; infrastructure constraints. after this data
base has been prepared using the most current ~nforma~1on from all
relevant sources, an environmentally superior and feasible
alternative could be constructed.
~. ~n alternative which considers clustering and the evaluation
of transit to determine that configuration of development could be
consisten~ with transportation constraints while balancing housing
and jobs within each community. This alternative should wore with
) the existing cities which would be planned as centers -or growth ~o
~he e)(~3nt that urban growth c~n be accommodated without creatin(~
land use. conflicts with adjoining agricultural lands and cross-
community conflicts based on anticipated or hoped ~or growth.
PROPOSLD rlITIG~TI0N ME~SU~E END/OR ~LT~RN~T:'\'~ ;OL,~N: ~ESTOR~
~ND FX~~ND pR~S~RY~TI0N LEND US~ D~SIGN~TION OF l~7~ PLAN
- The following should be considered by the Lead ~gency .~s the
b3si3 for an alternative Plan or as .3 mitigation measure. he
fol lowing proposed mitigation measure would provide a better way to
avoid r;he si~n1r icant environmental impacts associated wi ;h ~he
r.ecrear..?~on/OQen Sp(ace deslgn(3 tion and i~ in the 5~i it of
Q~u i dcl I nes Sec. ~520~(~). The ~F~R ails to discuss the mos;
approprIate and most feasIble ~iir.igation ;~easurC of alL'~: Dhe
1 res toi~a tion of the Preservation land use des iana~ion dde ~ed from
rhe i?7~ Plan. Not only -should ~he Preserva~icn ~esignat~on be
ci nsta ted, bu t I ; should 9oe expanded to include all private lands
within designated ~LPi ~C~C5, `wilderness Study areas, Hab'~~
Manauement ~rcas ~Ildli ~e refuges, and/or any other areas managed
by sr.ate or federal agencies for wildlife habi tat. or o:her purposes
ape lIed ou t by State or Federal law - t Is ecommended that th
boundary of tre reinstated Preservation des~gna~ion exzend 1/' mile
beyond the boundaries of the exist;ing H~C~C5 0 serve as a ouffer
much in the same way as buffers are included to protect c~her land
use designations from incompatible uses.
The expanded Preservation resignation would ensure a greater
degree of compatibility with adopted management plans of other
3gencies while ensuring that the natural resource ~roec:ion goals
and objectives of the various elements are more readily implemented
2 with less misunderstanding on the part of the public an~ decision-
makers. ~i thin the Preservation designation, agriculture and
intensive commercial, high density and high intensity recreational
or residential uses shall be prohibited regaroless of parcel size.
P- Residential development stancards shall authorize one single
gamily dwelling per for;y (40) acres as minimum lo~ size or any
new subdivisions. This density of residenrial development should
~be oomp~tible with the 6Li~ management programs for sensitive
~ ImQeriai Ooun~>' C,eneral Plan 39
PAGE 199 Show Image
3pecies, including listed threabened or endangered species,
consistent ~~ith the lack of available inf~ast~uctu~e resources to
553J most private inholdin~s, and ackno~~led~es the reduced development
I potential or desirability of certain lands if the ~THL is listed in
the near future as anticipated (DEIR, :11-107)
DEIR ~~lLS TO PROVIDE DOCUMENTATION TO SUPPORT CONCLUSIONS
THAT MITIGATION r1E~SURES COULD SUCC:-SS~ULLY MITIGATE It~P~CTS
* * DEIR FAILS TO IDENTIFY ~LL FE~SI8L:- ~1ITIG~TION ~iE~SURES
The DEIR mitigation measures are inadequate for a number of
reasons, includin9, but not limited be he folleL~in~:
1 lb rails to identify feasible miti~a~ion measures ~hioh ceu~:~
554 resuth in reducinq siq nificant or unavoidable im~ac~s ~o
insi~nific;~nb ~n example of this ta.~:ure is the fact thai hh~ DElP~
does nob include a ml tigation measure to *~rohibit development ~hic£~
~ou id adversely impact 0 r contribute be the cumulative impacts that
sill degrade the quanti by or quality of the groundwater resources
FyThe DEIR does not nc ltjde ~ mi t t - on measu r? tha t ~~ou ld
lorohibi t development of ne~ Irrigated ~c~ic'l tue on orivar~e ~an~s
I~Ldi'~c2nb ho or surround~d ~y ~i~t1 ~CECs r oiha~ managemenr area
or sensitive species - h ~nclu~es C ho res ~ -~ ot ne'~I
~ it; i %a b~ eN'. 1 `~ b i ~q rot I OciL~~ be r 5aseo U a eve o~m~ n U ~
gradient of bhe SCOSi live San Sebast n ~rsh/ San ~ei i~e Creek
~CEC ~ll projects potentially impact nq eater in ~he San
Sebd'stian marsh and San Felipe CreeK ~ 0 comely `~ith he
endangered Species ~cb due to bhe lIsrino or the desert pupflsh and
designation of critical habitat
3 The DEIR fails be restrict commeclal recreational vehicle
parks or mobile home par~s on priva;e lanos ad~acen~ to or
556 surrounded by ~LM ~CCCs and habi ta~ ~TianaqemenD areas for the
purpose of m'j*nimi:.ing impacts be oo~i:~al habitat for sensi `~~ve
species -
4. The DEIR fails to state ~hy pepula:ion jevels anticipated by
build-out of the proposed plan in ac~ir'on be ether land use
~c~ions should not be limited by air ~ua~ii;'y mpacts `~ithln "she air
557 basin which is subject to lmpacbs frcm lexIcal and RIverside
County development *`~hen pollutants a ready -2xceed State standards
for ozone and P~1lQ. -
~ number of mitigatIon measures are oescrio~ec as being able to
~educe signifIcant impacts to a level ~r insIgnificance or be a
evel bele~ sIgnificance. However, because cr the lack of current,
:558iu~-dabed information and analyses, or -.~e -.a~~ure C discuss
existing conditions at all, the efficacy of -he stazec mi;igations,
including bhose based on other planning coo'u me nts oe~ yet pre~~re~,
ho eliminabe or reduce the im~ac~s or qe general plan .`~pda~e are
DEIR, T.mperial County General ~1_
PAGE 200 Show Image
doubtful at best. For e>
PAGE 201 Show Image
esert nat as harsh as Imperial County litigation measures
relying an ~evegetation, including reve~etation pith native
species, may nat be successful During l~78 CDC~ advisory
Committee meeting discussion on evegetation in the desert Dr 8rum
tated that: the desert is indeed very slow to recover from
½~~\) disturbance, and even major attempts to return the vegetation to a
natural st~t~ will be disappointingly unsuccessful (~Lt1, l~73,
p.45.) These comments on mitigation measures fo ~evegetation also
apply to D~I~ discussion of evegetation mitigation measures and to
habitat restoration plans discussed in D~IR (P. III-l3Q-l3~).
B. ~hy does the DC-IR propose mitigation measures which are based
on the mixed land use and balanced housing and jobs strategies of
i-he sir- duality attainment Plan, when the implementation progr-am-..~
of the Draft GP Land Use element are ~nccnsistent with those
.~tratagies and would prohibit the implementation of such programs?
How would incorporation of the .~ir i~uaiity ~ttainm~nt Plan
:~trateg1 ~s I , and L-3 be incorporated into the Land Use
~lement~ `~hv hasn't this already been done along with the
necessa y changes in the development standards of the various land
t~se desiqn~~~on~ ~ it. is recommended in the D~IR? ~hy didn't the
prop O~~ci ~ P1 ~n Update resolve such external inconsistencica
oefore it wa~ released for public review?
t ~ mi tiga ion me~su res are pro~osed to reduce the
OT ~it pollution related to agricul tur:3.i operaT;ions as
~~~entit ~ in this environmental analy'3i5?
9. The D~IR fails to give any studies or information which would
aupport the assumption that the pr0posed mitigation measures would
in face be successful to mitigate impacts on biological resources,
particularly sensitive specieS, in the desert; environment oA
562 y.m~erial County How effective have open space easements been in
..i desert setting like Imperial County? there in the County have
mitigation measures such as open space easements to preserve
-~ensitive species (DC-IR, III-l~Q, l;l) been dsed, and with what
success
How relevant is the discussion of ~fire buffer clearing'
I (DEIR, 111-132) to the various biological resources in Imperial
5631 County? Other than in already developed areas of the County where
t~ire buffer clearings occur?
hv shouldn't mitigation measures be included which would
~espond to the failures of the local ~PCD to implement measures
related to monitoring and enforcement of air quality standards and
discussed in the report of the State ~ir Resources Board as
~64 descibed in the ~ article of 3/17/93? That report cites
out-dated regulations, Tailure to do required inspections and
monitoring, failure to conduct required annual tests1 failure to
enforce regulations by assessing penalties or violations, etc. -
\4hy shouldn't the ~PCD officer be returned to the jurisdiction of
DC.I~, Imperial County Ceneral Plan
PAGE 202 Show Image
he Environmental Health Officer as it ~as originally? ~Jouldn't
such an action remove the potential for conflict of interest that
564 exists at present pith the ~PCD residing in the Department pith
oversight and permitting related to the activities that represent
the major sources of air pollution within the County?
Mitigation measures which should be included in the DEIR
include, but are not limited to the folloL~ing:
F; 9rohibit any ne'~ development which degrades or depletes any of
5651 the groundwater basins or surface eater within the County pith
Yffio3opecial reference to preservation of quality and availability of
table quality groundwater resources.
Fm Reduce development in certain areas so that traffic patterns
5661~i 11 not result in unc-:*cceptable traffic levels of use on oonnec~ing
transPo r tab ion corridors.
Reintroduce the Desert Residential Land Use category for areas
~i th groundwater development resource constraints -or areas `~i th
L\ noon 0 P anti cipa ted g rou nd~a te r resou roe constraints, prepare a
567 ~ land use category (and toning category) to accommodate larger
~~inim'~m ot sire (oerhaps minimum 40 acre lot~size) based on
-~int~li Q(;~tterns similar ~o the scheme used by ~an Diego County
0~rm~ ~r;~d tjse~; *3re ro be consist?nt ~i t;h reour cc cons~rainr.s
1~- Prepare .~ nets land tise cateqory (and zoning category) ror
5681 Ia nds `~~i th knoL~n 5ensi~ive resource constraints. Minimum lot size
LL ~ thor iced uses should be consis~tent ~i ~h resource constraints -
~ Reinst~~e the l97~ ~Preservation land use designation for
ends ;~i thin and adjacent to areas or restricted access such as
`~tlderness study areas and areas within and immediately a~jacen~ to
BLM ~CEOs and designated \4ildl~re Habitat Management ~reas or areas
des~gnai;ed as Orit~oal Habitat for listed species under E3~ and any
0 rher ~ ta be 0 r ~ederal areas des igna ted for special habitat
~~nagement. This could be consistent vjith the mitigation measure
in DEIR IIi~l~2 referencing the Resource areas designated on ~
l4. County development standards for private `~inholdings' should
be compatible t~i th the management mandates of 8LM related to
probec~~on of sensitive biological resources as evaluaced by 3Li~1
staff.
~. he protection designation should restrict any intensive uses
including agriculture, intensive or consumptive recreation, and
high density or high intensity residential or recreational/tourist
activities on private inholdings surrounded by or adjacent to 9LP'l
~CECs or CDFG Significant Natural areas (SN~s) as sho~~n on an
updated and corrected ~ig. 14
DEIR :mperial County General elan
PAGE 203 Show Image
Sp~oIF:C QUESTIONS R~G~RD~NG GENER£~L ~L~N CONS¶STNCY
~ requires thai ~he EI~ be sufficient to serve as an
informational document and thai i~ identify inconsistencies between
the project and existing plans and regulations The D~IR fails to
address the inconsistencies .~i thin the draft General elan Update,
~I5 including ~he missing Housing ~lement There are a number of areas
of inconsistencies `~ithin the General elan as discussed o'y the OPR
General Plan Guidelines ~hich, if left unaddressed and uncorrected,
sill result in an internally inconsistent c'eneral plan
The folio~~ing are some general questions related :o important
potential areas of inconsistencies
I Ho~ does the proposed land use plan conform pith policies
related to protection of significant biological resources and
572 habitat ~reas? Ho~ does the general plan intend ~o correc:
conflicts between County authorized uses on private lancs and 8LPI
mandates for habitat manajement for sensitive species?
tu;0~i resources?
573~:ui ~ ar~ l~i~d jses configured to avoi~ Lmpacts on s~gnificanA;
Pm' Ho~ do proposed gener~i plan land use categor'Cs reflect
-~peci ric resource cons treinr 3saues? :~o~ does the proposed lan(~
*jse Qlc\.n norrel ;~~e ~i t'.h t.h~ land `Jse c~esi.gnat~ons n~ perceiveQi
51 (ons tr.~ints of shared ~i r and ground~a r;er r'~sou ces as expressed in
the General Plans of the ad3oining Riverside ano San diego
"Lu n t i Cs?
4. ~hat criteri:~ .~ere used to desi~nate :~ single parcel as being
locat;ed ifl 7L~O different land use categories ~y dra'~ing a ~in~
through ~a the r ths~n a ro~~ no the privately o~nea ano a: Sun rise
Butte? `shy do land use category lines follow parcel lines to
indicate agricui~ural lands served ~y ~Tfl1 but no: follow parce
575 1 ines ror lands `.~hich are all dependent upon the same grounc~ater
resource or development in the sou th~es tern portion of the county?
l~hy shouldn't all land use category boundaries ~e mapped `.~ith the
same precision? `shy are areas surrounding the Ocotillo to~nsi te
referred to as being both in the Rural Residential designation and
~n the ~cotillo/Nomirage Community area Plan?
:`n that area and any others ~ith land use category lines
dividing private oarcels into t~c different land use categories,
ho~ `~~~ould conflicts arising from interpretations related to which
land use category applies to the parcel as a `whole be resolved?
~76 ~hy \4oulo'n' t the more prudent planning decision `oe to resolve
tather than create any problems of interpretation prior to the
adoption of the General Plan by precisely drafting land use
categories to eliminate confusion about the land use designation
or specific parcels?
~~IR Imoer~al County General `rlan
PAGE 204 Show Image
~. Describe how the land use and circulation elements are
correlated. Please describe how the housing element (with its
~ 1989-1994 time frame and which was not accepted by the state) is
correlated with and consistent with the land use, especially the
5p~s, and other elements.
7. ~hy were detailed descriptions of the 12 Urban area Plans and
their associated maps and the detailed descriptions of the
community ,~rea Plans and their associated maps omitted from
78~ppendi~ ~ of the GP Land Use Element? How can the role of these
missing area Plans and their relationship to and consistency with
the overall General Plan be determined when Plans are not included
in the Draft General Plan Update?
Specific comments in ~esponse to ~eview of
Draft Progr.3m Environmental ImpacZ Report for the
County 01: Imperial General Plan Update (SCH ~93OllO23)
THE ~OLLO~ING IS P~RTI~LLY CHRONOLOGIC.~L 8~SED ON THE DEIR `END
c..O\~ERS DEI9 ISSUES NOT DISCUSSED PREVIOUSLY
The following' comments were prepared as the Draft General Plar
..)pdate (.GP) and Draft Program H:R (DEIP') were reviewed, zec~1on by
Sec ~ion. 8ecause the DEIR is eased on the be~t ~ mass of the
Draft General Plan Updato, many comment will ~e cross ro-farenced
back to the corresponding pages of the GAP. It should be noted that
consi~~erable test in the DEIR was aken verbatim from the te.~t or
appendices of the GP.
INTRODUCTION
To be used as a reference guide for he qreparation of
environmental documentation for future projec~5 (DEIR, 1-2) the
DEIR should be based on current cata, resortS, an~ reflect the
579 current available planning and manaoemen~ information reflecting
mandated programs on adjoining federal and state lands. Reliance
on an outdated (1985) overview and outdated USGS (1977) study while
ignoring current monitoring data is not adequate.
II PROJECT DESCRIPTION
8. PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN
- ~GRICULTUR~L ELEY\ENT (GP-~E)
The criticism of GP-~E discussion in the project descr~p~ion
is that it is too brief to tell much about the proposed project.
580 However, inadequacies of DEIR project description for this element
are similar to the discussion of the ~and Use Element as related to
agricultural uses. as for the GP-S/PSE.
DEIR, Imperial County General Plan 95
PAGE 205 Show Image
6. OONS~RY~TION ~ND OPEN S~~CZ ~L~MENT
~8i The discussion of this element is Sc superficial as be be
L inadequate as a component of the proposed project, General elan
Update.
I¶I. ~N\~IRoNMENT~L ~N~LYSIS
~. LEND US~
Ho~J is it possible for the public be evaluate any analysis of
the: ~0mpatibiliby of bhe Urban ~rea desi~nabions ~n the proposed
~~eneral Plan Update i.~ith the spheres of influence of the various
~82 munici~alibieS ~~jithin bhe County (D~IR, hi-i) then none of the 12
Urban area Plans and none of the associated Urban area Plan maps
~as included in ~ppendi~ ~ of bhe GP-I-U~ as indicated in bhe GP-LU~
I ~
p .
D~IR , ill-I fails to address a category of impacts on
adjacenb federal lands even bhou~h in discussion of £exis~~n~
conditions' on thab same pa~e the DEI~ states that appro~ima~ely
% of the County lands are lar~e1y undeveloped and under federal
otAJnership - ~l thou9h the `developed area there the Counry
moo rpo ra bed ci b jes - uni nco rpo ra bed commun L bi~~ ~nd suppo r ~in~
~,~cili t~C5 ar3 situated comprise ess than on~ ~ ~1~:3 or' the
(P,~¶P, II:L-~). the cotential ror ser~ou~ ~ rse in~a,cts on
5~;3 federal lands e~i5 ro.. occause several lano ~ ~o-siona r~ons
~uthorize uses `~jhI~h are incompatibLe `Mi bh the m~n ~~ement man~ate'$
of federal and state a~enc1e5. Land use ~ ,,na~ions
authorize or conbemplate one or more uses ~ncomoatible :~i th federa:
manaQ3emen~ mandates are: ~ecreabion/OQen space, ~9ricul u-e,
ndusi;ry, ~ Plan area, SpeciSl Purpose ,`-aci'ity, Urban, and
even possibly Community ~rea5 (clans for -~h~cn are not ye
,~vailable) - ahab is the oasis ~or such continuing ~4isrecar~ or
federal management mandates'?
j :-;~istin~ Conditions
~~here are the population figures and number of housing units
for bhe ~ollo~ing communities nob incluoec in the lisa or
jnincorporated communities in Table 2 (D~IR, ~
584 -- bombay ~eac~3
Hot `1ineral epa, Salton Sea Beach, desert Shores, and Palo
PAGE 206 Show Image
Ocotillc to 4.23 in Heber, based an Table 2 (DEIR, :11-3). ~ha~
are the criteria for determining whether or not, or then or if a
community is designated as an Urban area? ~interhaven is a
35 proposed Urban area of 70 acres, chile rest Shores/Salton O~ty area
is a Proposed Urban area of 31,340 acres. according to Table 2, the
~interhaven Bard area had a~pro>(imately 1200 more residents than
the much larger acreage of ~es b Shores/Sal ban Ci by.
a. E>
PAGE 207 Show Image
nolude portions of ~nza Borrego Desert: State Park and the special
filanagement required by those state and federal agencies for
critical habitat for the desert pupfish, habitat management for
5901 oi;her wildlife species, special management plans for the ~ and
I wilderness study areas. ~hy does the ~ecreation/Open Space
~tegory fail to mention the federal policy for non-conversion of
classified federal lands to private ownership for agriculture?
Given the D~IR (III-I3~ discussion of Specific Plan .~reas, ~hy
have no SPAs been proposed for protection of natural resources and
for historic preservation? ?~hy were the designations for
preservation omitted when so much of the area of the County is
591 indeed federal or state lands not available for development? !~hat
cri te~ia were used to determine whether or not the proposals for a
Z)pecifiO parcel and project would be designated/mapped as a
potential SPA?
P- ~hy aren't: the proposed regional landfills discusse'Z under the
Special Purpose Facility designation since t:hey are Identified by
5921 name on DFIR 111-150 and the Mesquite Landfill is shown on GP-LU~
and the proJect proponent assisted wIth the financing of the
¼~eneral Plan Update (¶mpy~ r~ial yalley Pr?ss articles.)?
- F~vI ronmen t~.l Impac t3
- Inciustry
!,~hy was the l~7~ Heavy Industry deslgna:ion deleted from the
~esquite Lake area and changed to a SP~ designation (D~I?~, ¶11-17)?
~n the proposed plan update the only area desIgnates as industry~
is at Plaster City. The uses whIch may be permitzed in the
proposed GP-LU~ (P.45) designation for Industry are more inclusive
j~3 and include uses related t:o hazardous waste treatment an~
incineration. Since t:hese uses do not currently exist at Plaster
City, has this site been evaluated and designated as the only sIre
within the County as suitable for such hazardous wasre r~atment
facilitieS even though Class ¶ and II facilities are locatez
elsewhere at present, and incineration facilities are located a~
Mesquite Lake? ~hy does the Plast:er City site to the west of the
new State prison have what appear to be less stringent requirements
for t:hese Locally Undesirable Land Uses (LULUs)?
The DEIR fails to provide meaningful discussion of impacts on
the proposed development at FelIcity of ~ acre -~ an are-i
where only a few structures exist at: present. ~iuch 0 zhe land
designated for the "New Town" at Felicity (DEIR -17) is
publicly owned and managed by BLM. CE~~ r~qu ~s that
envIronmental review consider the environmen~al imo~c on the
existing conditions on the ground at present ~ ~onmental
~lannin~ and Information CQunciJ, at p54.) and no~ ~~mpare the
impacts to what mlghr have been expected at build-our fender the
L97~ Plan. The DEIR fails to make the correct impac nalysis of
DEIR, Imperial County General Plan
PAGE 208 Show Image
~he changed land use designation. The DEIR concludes that the
proposed change to SP~ designation is no~ vie~Jed as a change
resulting in adverse land use effects" because "ib avoids bhe range
of pobential problems associated ~~ith the development cf a large
industrial area disbant from established population centers" (DEIR,
iII~k7). This reasoniflg ignores the requirements for impacts
analysis under (;Er~~. Similarly, the requirementS for impacts
analysis of changed designations at Mesquite Lake and Niland must
address the changed potential uses and the impacts on existing
condi tions -
- Government/Special public
The proposed Land Use Plan Fig~4 shoL~s out-dated boundaries
for th~ lands managed for military ~ithdra~al. The General Plan
595 Update does not reflect the Oooperative agreement between the \1avy
md 8L~ resulting prom the L~S5 Plan amendment. Ho~ YJill
discreo.ancies of this magnitude t~e corrected?
b. Land Use Issues of the Plan Update
- - Land Use Impacts .~ssociated L~ith the Specific Plan ~~rea
Des ~~na r; ions
Mid paragr..~ph it should be noted that the SPAs crease the
potential ~or significant `conflicts" as i~elL as si~ni~icant land
u525 he DEl? ifn~F.3rmiss'~bly i~nores isc'ussinq the identified
QO ~ ~l ror s1~nL~1.c.~nb land use .`zonfl~cts includin;
596 "inc m~ ~rible adjacent; land uses" beinq e.\acerba red `~y the -ac:
r'h~~ ~ ti~L-ll typically develop in phases over .3 somewhat e~tended
oer~o~ cf t'me (DEl?, ~II-i~). Secsusr~ each proposed SP~ has an
alr~~dy intended land use, often in much greaser detail than -for
other ~nd use designations - the impacts analysis discussing the
imo~c~ of each proposed SP~ on the existing conditions ~resenb for
--.-.~ac~ ~ must be addressed by the DEIR. The Impacts analysis must
~o beyond D~IR discussion of conflict;s bet~~~een adjoining land us-'~
designations -
Mesquite Lake SP~
DEIR Ill-CO identifies Mesquite Lake as an area of poor
agricultural land, chile 111-51 identities the same area as one
pith Important Farmland, and GP-~E (p.io') says the same site is
597 "alkali". I~hich, if any, is the correct assessment of current
conoi:,ions existing at tha: site? there is the discussion of the
imoacts of anticipated uses upon the area as Lb currently existS?
The comparison of impacts of uses to the i97~ Plan is inadequate
under o:-~~ and ignores potential impacts of development on the
~acan~ land in the area.
Interstate S/State Route ill SP~
The proposed uses are inconsistent. DEIR states that
598 residential `ises are prohibited7 but yet could consider permitting
an ~V lark `.~hich could likely be residential or long-berm visitor
use. (DEIR, Ill-CO.) ~hy bhe inconsistency? Is there .3 ;~v park
DEl? Imperial County General Plan
PAGE 209 Show Image
lready at the site and ~he language included bo grandfabher in
ather than create a non-conformin9 uses
1~hy couldn't the qermittin~ of separate Specific Plans for
north and south of I-S have the effect of impermissible
piecemealin~ the impacts by dividing the SP~ into small projects in
599 ~n attempt to seQarately focus on parts of the whole of the
Qroject? (Remy, 47) The impacts of the anticipated identified
development on the existinq conditions on the around at present
have been ignored by the DEIR.
felicity SP~
DEIR fails to ac!\'noLJled~e that a substantial amount of the
:3rea ~epioted on ~ ~or the Felicity SP~ includes public lands
rnana~ed oy ~ 8ecause there are only a fe'.~ structures present in
the area today and because some very specific L15C5 are detailed by
DEIR (111-21), the DEIR erroneously presumes that the policies for
~o0 development in addition to the ruture preparation of an EIR *~ould
avoid the occurrence of adverse land use impacts in association
`~jith the Felicity SP~ desi~nation' (DEIR, III-~1) Such reasonin~~
o\/er1ook~s purpose of the OEC~~ required analysis of impacts of the
Qrooosed land use desi~nation on the rxist~n~ conditions at the
site today.
Clamis `?~P~
.~t the 2/ 1o/o.~ P1anninQ~ Commission meetinq, consul t;'n~ ~1coney
.3 ta ted tha ~ SPAs ~ou Id require a minifflum parcel size of b4Q acres
~on5equf~nt1y this proposed 160 acre Glamis SP~ and the mentioned
5P~5 ror 160 acre parcels in the Recreation/0p3n Soace desiona~ion
~.re in conflict pith public statements. ~ visit -~o the site of
the oroposed Glamis SP~ should be enouqh to convince anyone ~ha t
~.ven ~i~;h the proposed development policieS mentioned in. DEIR (III-
22) the proposed commero ial ac tivi ties, includinq mc~el and RY and
601 mocile-home parks and community facilities `.~ii1 result in serious
environmental impacts and resu I t in uses that conf I ic t ~i th the
~urroundin~ uses on ~ lands. The presence Of community
racili ties implies a permanent or semi-permanent population, most
likely retirees because of the distance from any employment. The
noise, dust, and air pollution resulting from the existing ORV
activity in the area could make the proposed uses incompatible pith
e.~isring uses. The creation of a ne~ residential community at the
~Iamis SP~ could be singularly inappropriate.
Holtville ~ir Strip SP~
The DEIR conclusion that significant land use impacts could
Jno~ result (DEIR, III-2Z) from the various manufacturing and or
`~aypor~' uses (DEIR, 111-22) contemplated for this SP~ in a
~ location cescr~bed as having no fac~lit~es, and is seldom used'
(DEIR, T'~-~~) is absurd and based on the erroneous interpretation
f the ~ required impacts analysis discussec for other SPAs.
olicy statements alone cannot suffice for ciscussion of impacts
thar ~ouIo' result from development ot: land ~ithcut existing
DEIR, Imperial County General clan 100
PAGE 210 Show Image
)`02~ilities.
East Border orossing SP~
Why does Lhe DEIR(III-23) indicate that this SP~ contains
1,500 acres, yjhile the GP---LUE (pill) states that is approximately
2,000 acres'? Regardless of that policies or implementation
measures are stated there `~ill be significant impacts on the
e~isting land if the planned industrial, commercial and residential
303 development occurs on lands that are presently devoted to
agriculture. The preparation of a future EIR for the detailed
proposed developments identified for this SP~ (DEIR, 111-23 94)
cannot substitute ~or discussion of the impacts of changing the
existing ag ricu 1 Lu ral designa Lion to the proposed very intensive
land uses which sill crowd out existing agriculture and preclude
future agricultural development.
Tamarack Canyon Ranch SP~
This proposed Sp,~ could allot leapfrogging of recreational and
residential uses into agricultural lands in ccnt,~ast to Goal 2 and
its objectives -to prohibit leapfrogging of non-agricultural
development into agricultural lands. (GP-~E,p.30-3l.) The
requxrement for a future environmental impacr report for a proposed
604 project already sell defined, results in piecemealing the General
Pl3~n Rev~e'.~ process and is inadequate as a substi -`u Le Tor an
analysis of the impacts ot' changinc~ the land use ~esionaLion from
ag ri cu t.t;u re to a net~ residential and r'ec r'~a Lion communi Ly &~~a y f-~om
the e'~is Li n~ urban cen Le rs. Im~ac t~ analysis must i no lude
discussion of impacts of the proposed uses compared to the existing
agricu l Lu ral uses -
Bravo Ranch SP~
6051 Comments for the DEIR's inadequate impacts analysis for his
are the same as for the East Border Crossi no SPA.
- Land Use Conflicts associated pith Special purpose Facility
designa Lion
The first paragraph notes rhat Class 1, II, ancz III solid and
liquid taste facilitieS, correctional facilirieS and general
aviation airports have physical or operational characteristics
incompatible pith most other land use categories.' (DEIR, 111-25.)
With that preliminary assumption, ho~ then does the DEIR justify
606 the assertion that the development of standards and the requirement
of a CUP could be "considered sufficient to preclude the occurrence
of land use impacts" (DEIR, 111-23.) If the existence of an
existing landfill within a community ~rea represenrs a significant
adverse land use impact" (DEIR, 111-25), ho~ is it possible that a
much larger facility located in the midst of some other land use
designation ~~ould not represent an even greater significant adverse
land use impact"?
~fl7 ~3. Mitigation Measures
The DEIR ~~appropriately analyzed the "differences between t~e
DEIR, Imperial ounty Oeneral Plan 101
PAGE 211 Show Image
.97w Ultimate Land Use Plan and the Plan Update (D~IR, 111-26)
rather than using the existing conditions `eon the ground' as the
basis for its environmental analysis of the impac:s of the general
plan update's changed land use designations (~nffl£onmental L~anninQ
607 and Information Council, at ~54-355). accordingly, the D~IR `did
not identify any adverse land use effects.' (DEIR, 111-26.) eased
on its flared environmental analysis, the D~IR erroneously
oonc luded that no mitigation measures are requ I red -" (D~ IR, III-
_ ~ Ho~~ sill this error be rectified?
Land Use Issues of the Plan Update
~Passing L~FCO amendments sill no; alone be sufficieni; to
308~ mitigate the impacts and land use conflIcts that result prom the
LLradu~l migration of urban uses into existIng agricultural lan~cis.
This i~ another *` necessary but not sufficient' proposition.
Land Use impacts re SpeciFIc Plan `~rea designations
Ho~ does the inclusion of a land use compatibility study for
each SP~ mitigate any impacts? In revie'~ing the SP~ oolicies
609 included PIth the O1P-LU~, it ~as found that no (~P-LU~ SP~ policies
(GP-LU~, p.ll-~9) required .~ land use compatibility study >uch
studies ~o not occur in policy dIsousz~ons of ~he ()FIR impacts
section as asserted by D~IR (III-?6).
LAnd .Jse Conflioi;s re SpecIal Pu~oose -acill tI~.s
`t~OVJ couLd the env~.ronmentai revie'~~J ~ te pocentI;~l *2nQaoz-
of the SP~ to'belo~ a level of signLrIo~noe I\'LTh~1R - II-?~)? Aihr.;-.
6101 date could. support t;his conclIsion, that studies at .~hat other
I locations? Perhaps it could be true if -~he "sensitive receptors
?ll bqind, deaf, and had lost thei. sense of smelL.
The D~1R fails to address any lano use Impacts in `~I~erside
County that could result from increased .~opulation densIties a~ the
north end of the County and adjacent to he RLverside CountY lIne,
611 as requested by the RIverside County *~lanning Department .-`n i
9/~Q/92 letter included in the D~IR ~.opendx. I"4hy? LTh~:R fails oc
discuss potential impacts on availabLe .~a~er resources to support
the proposed changes in land use deslgrat ons.
In considering the adequacy Of -IRs used by a county in
adopting t~o area plans as amendments to the county general plan,
the court found that the requirements of ~ mere not 5~ti~~i~d
`.~hen the SIRs compared the environmental Impacts of the proposed
general plan amendments to the existing plan Itself rather than to
the existing environment. urther -he recuirements of c~;~ ~ere
612 not satisfied by comparing projected ocoulation and development of
the existIng plan and the oropose~ plan. ~jnen the proposed amended
plan could actually result in substants' -noreases in population
in each area rather than the "illuscr'~ ~O,C55C5' Indicated by
comparing the proposed plan to the ex-st~g plan. (F~nvironmentai
Planninq and IQto~rn.ation_Council v. uourtv of I Dorado (l~S2) L~l
C.~ I~ ~ ~5l; ~32 C.R. I'l7.~
OF-IR, Imperial County (;.~ner.3l Plan -02
PAGE 212 Show Image
noL~here calls for evaluation of the impacts of a
proposed project on an existing general plan; ib concerns (
itself ~i~h the impacts of the project on Lhe
environment, defined as the existing physical conditions
in the affected area. The legislation evinces no
interest in the effects of proposed general plan
amendments on an existing general plan, but instead has
clearly e~pressed concern L~i~h bhe effects of projects on
the .3c~ual environment upon which ~he proposal ~~AJill
operate. ( Infqrmabion_COQC2Oij.
v. ~ (1982) 131 C.~. 3d 350, 354; 182
C.R. 317.)
JuQicial intervention is appropriat;e [t.~ith respect to
~IR~] only there there has been an abuse of discretion,
.~hich sill be established if the county has not proceeded
in -~ manner required by ~ or there the county's
decision is not supported by substantial evidence.(Pub.
Resources Code Sec. 21168.5; No Oil inc. V. Cit~~~o%
~nc'~eJ.*~5 (1974) 13 C. 3d 68,74; 118 C.R. 34.) Of course,
if the ~I~5 in this case rail to report on the potential
environmental impacts of the area plans on ~he
exis tin(~ env i ~onmen t, bhen the county has not proceeded
a manner requi red by laL~. (~n vi i-onmenQa:J Pj..annin~.and
information - ~ 1 Dorado ( 1982) 131
12 LL4F.*.*½d L5o 355; 82 C.~. 3l7.$~~.....--*.--*....-.. . (
~fi;er evaluating the manner in `which the environmental impacts
of the area plan amendments to the county general plan had been
compaed to the b~ji ld-ou t potential of the existing county general
QIan rhe Court concluded that the examples of ~IR analysis
rev L e'.~ed ~e re:
not .~li inclusive but are merely illustrative of the
manner ~n .~hich the ~:Rs `~£Jere prepared. It is true that
the reports do discuss certain physical impacts upon the
existIng environment, but such information must be
painstakingly ferreted out of the reports. The
comparisons, ~e have seen, are allays between the
existing general plan and proposed amendments.
(~nyironmental P~nin~ and Information Council v. Countv
of ~l Dorado (1982) 131 C.~. 3d 350, 357; 182 C.R. 317.)
The deficiency of the SIRs is manifest ?~hen the
existing environment is compared to the general plan.
The proposed plans actually call for substantial
increases in population in each area rather than the
illusory decreases from the general plan.
The comparisons utilized in the SIRs can only mislead
the public as ~o the reality of the impacts and subvert
full consideration of the actual environmental impacts
which `could result. There are no extensive, detailed
evaluations of the impacts of the proposed plans on the
environment in its current state. accordingly, the ~I~s
()~IR Imperial County General elan 103
PAGE 213 Show Image
sail as informative documents. (Environmen~a1 Plannin~
612' apd Information Council V: Coynty of ~l Dorado (1982) 131
O.k. 3d 350, 357-358; 182 C.R. 317.)
~. 8IOLOGIC~L RESOURCES ~NVIRONMENT~L ~N~LYSIS
613w Comments on D~I~ adequacy of bhe biological resources analysis
L§.xistin~ Condi~ions' is covered else~~ihere in this response.
2. :-N\/IRONM~NT~L It4P~CT3.. .8IOLOGIC~L RE3OURC~S ~
The O~IR for the General Plan (Jpdate stases that it ~il1 defer
discussion of imp(~c~5 to biological resources (sho~~n on Fig. 14) ~o
~he future. ~t thai time, impacts ~il1 be addressed in focused
biological studies [which] ~jill be required as a pare of subsequenr
~nvi ronment-al review for future development projects' (D~I~ III-
124). To defer discussion of the potential impacts that could
result from `build-out' or development of the uses permitted under
the changed land use designations of the proposed Plan is to ignore
the requirements of ~ Guidelines 15126. The result is that
DFIR provides inadequate discussion of the physical chanqes and
:~l terations to the ecosystem that could result from induced changes
~ n popu l.3~t ion dis ribu tion and concentration resu 1 t i ng ~ cm changed
~3nd use designations.
a - Plants and Vegetative habi ta ~
This discussion is totally inadequate in light of the
,-~ui;horization of agricultural uses and intensive recreational uses
within the Recreation/Open 3pace designation. Off-road vehicle
,,,cti\/ity results in compaction of soils at the root zone, direct
Linpacts crush or destroy germinating seedlings or can damage mature
plants and thereby affect potential future generations, and
$15 disturbance of the fragile surface of desert soils subjects then to
increasing rind and eater erosion which affects the ability of
seeds to germin~te and seedlings to survive - D~IR provi~e.-~
nadequate discussion of the potential direct an~ indirec
significant effects resulting from changed human uses of the land
resulting from changing the land use designation from preservation
(p973 Plan) to Recreation/Open Space in the proposed Plan as
required by o:~~ Guidelines Sec. 15126(a).
b. Sensitive Species and Habitats
agriculture/Pesticide Spraying
~hy does the D~IR fail to address the obvious issue that the
cultivation and irrigation of agricultural lands tonally destroys
~16 -he habitat of sensitive species such as the flat-sailed horned
lizard an~ desert tortoise and/or can result in habitat
fragmentatIon including loss of an important pare of an
,ndividual's home range and/or the ability of the species to move
rom one area to another. (ELM FTHL (1990), p.10-11; 3Li~1 03 (1986)
~teinhart (1Q90) p.39) Discussion of the potential direct
DCIR, Imperial County General Plan 104
PAGE 214 Show Image
and indirect significant impacts resul~~ng from changes human uses
L
16 of the land is required by C~Q~ Guidelines 15126(a).
The negative effects of pesticide spraying on insectivorous
~11~ts is sell documented and cited earlier.
eater (;.uality
DFIR fails to address the impacts of biologically contaminated
`~a~ers in t;he canals serving rural residential users and ~he
potential impacts from exposure to ra~ canal `eater an~ addressed by
~he EP~ order ~o lID (L2/92). I~ also fails ~o discuss the
potential for algal or vegetative blooms in stacnanb eaters.
4jrban and Rec rca ~ional Developmen b
The discussion of es~ablishmen~ of fire ouffers between
developed and na~ura1 areas (DEIR, lII-~26) suggests t;hab bhis
-section ~as copied from an EIR prepared for some other projeor In
some other jurisdiction. I~ha~ is meanb by rhe conbinual
319 maintenance of fuel management :ones (DEIR, 111-126)? Daes ~he
discussion of u b~n jmpacts and urban roads (DEIR, 111-126) ~ithin
t;he are:~s ~her~ ~h~r -~ 3.rC sensitive species(such as SLL~ ~CECs)
r9flCOb ~he .:~ut:hoi i~~bion ~ or high dens~Jy commerc1~l recrea~1on
con t;ern~ 1 ~ ~ed on 13 r~e pa roe is ~i shin ~he cc rca t~on/Open Space
~csiqnai;ion (DEIR, 111-121 122)?
The C)EIR fa]~~ ro qr-Ov%dC 3dequa~e isotisslon of ~he ooten~ICA
5 i~n if ican b imp~~c ~ of ;~CO rc3 rional -eve iopmen c on ~ `exis ~in~
envtronmenr as ~qu~r~d by CE~~ Guidelines Sec. 15126 Particularly
~ir'h respect ~o high density and hLgh in~cnsirY of rccrea~ional/
620 residential t~ses and ORY acrivit~es In areas adjacent to or
surrounded by ~ ~CECs. The 3Li~1 idenrIfied adverse impacts of ORV
activity on FTHL habitat has not been c~~ncL~lcdge~ by the DEIR,
even though one 5 tudy teas 0 i ted.
Roads and ~ot~cr Transmission -ines
DEI~ gives general information a~ou ~ he :~oac5 of roads and
transmission lines but fails to address -ne specIfics of such
621 developments in Imperial County ~~hcr-e It teas `ocen documented in 8L~
~CEC management plans for both the Yuha ~asin ano ~hc East Mesa
.~CEC. VJhy?
~ff-HighLAJay Vehicles
~hy oces the DEIR (III-l~~) raii ro correlate the discussion
of the documented Impacts of ORY or OHV ac~ivi ty on sensitive
`~ildl ife populations WIthin the areas `.~nicn £4ere originally
preservation bu~ no~ recreation/Open Space such as ~he Yuha basIn
622 .~CEC ~jhIch is managed for FTHL habitat valuc~~ The failure to
relate general text to any speci~iO areas ano creation of potential
significant effects violated the requircmen~s `Df C:-~~ Guidelines
Sec. 15126(a). DEIR `e~~no~ledgcs the: oss of vegetation due to
OHVs t~hich results in reduced amouns of cover and forage
naterial available (DEIR, III-l2~) `out rever rela~cs the
r-)F-I~ :rnperial County General Plan 1Q5
PAGE 215 Show Image
significance of these impacts to a category I species such as FTHL.
The DEIR discussion understates the significant ORV and camping
impacts described in BLM Yuha Management Plan (p.24-25) and
6221 Sheridan (1979, p.50). t~Jhy doesn't the DEIR acknowledge the
serious nature of ORV impacts in a manner consistent pith BLM
documents'?
Geothermal
Because the DEIR fails to mention the geothermal lease areas
and geothermal development within the East Mesa ~CEC (GP-GE,
623 Fig.1), it has avoided discussion of potential significant impacts
of further geothermal development in the East Mesa area which is
optimal habitat for the FTHL.
L Sand on and Gravel populations in such significant ind~;;eecret
624 noise of tri~cking operations associated t~Ith mineral transport and
blowing dust from disturbed extractive areas have long been a
source of complaints by residents to County officials.
DEIR discussion of environmental impacts of mining operations
~~)n sensitive species i~ inadequate because it fails to specifically
(3ddress the existing and potential future impacts of mining
I;~P5er~~tions on the desert tortoise, a USF'~S and CDFG species listed
625 eateneti. The nining operations are located ~~thin the area
r,'esently mapped for inclusion as part of the Chuck~alla desert
tortoise habitat management plan. ~Jhy doesn't the DEIR discussIon
L include at least the imoacts listed In GP-C/OSE (p.17)?
~hy does the DETR contain no discussion of the County park'.
6261 including heist Lake County Park and Sunbeam Lake which mere
mentioned in the GP-C/OSE (p.~1)?
Because the DEIR fails to identify the sources of information
used in creating DEIR Fig. 15, it is not possible to determine
whether is it merely mapping er'ors or out-datea information thac'
resulted in the creation of overlap in areas pith "sensitive
627 biology' and `areas requiring future biological szudies" within the
areas shoL~n on DEIR Fig.5 (~II-~l) as being agricultural lands.
This area of tipple overlap to the south and west of Salton Sea and
within the cultivated areas to the west of the ~estside Main Canal
should be discussed in the text, or the ~T)apping should be corrected
to. reflect current existing conditions.
B. AGRICULTURE... ENVIRCNMENT~L E~
~The DEIR text appears to be essentially the text of the GP-~E,
Ja1th,ou~h, the DEIR and GP-~E use different sees of population
~ protections. DEIR (~II-42) indicates a pcpula~ion of 164,115 by
the year 2000. P.~P-~E (p. ~ states a populaton of 140,000 by
1q,99, Both documents reference the same 1992 Department of Housing
DEIR, Imperial County General Plan 106
PAGE 216 Show Image
3nd Community Development estimate. But, is it realistic to expect
c~ populabion increase of 25,000 in one year? The factors leading
628 ~ t;his kind of growth inducing impact deserve considerable
discussion in the DEIR.
b Current Irrigation agriculture in Imperial County
Produobive Soils
D~IR Fig.5 "Existing ~gricul~ural Land in Imperial County'
f3i15 bo depict bhe presence of the existing urban areas there
t;here is no longer cultivated agriculture. The locations of the
629 incorporabed cities and unincorporated communibies (Table 2, DEIR,
111-3) within those lands designated as agricultural is essential
in order ~o achieve some conformance wibh bhe proposed land use
Plan.(DEIR, Fig 4) and its designation of urban areas.
The mapping of existing agriculbural land on Fig 5 is
inconsistent with locations of various biological resources in the
63Orn~3ps included in bhe E~ for Biological Resources. Eibher bhe
rna~ping errors need to be corrected or the conflicts be resolved in
t;he bexb.
The area east of bhe East Highlme Canal and rest of the
Coachella Canal is idenbified as bhe Easb Mesa unib of bhe Imperial
.~rrigabion Disbrict Map (1990). DEIR agricultural environmental
~n&:~lysis reference to the locations of Class III located east to
the Fast Highline Canal -oncludes that: Barring the availability
of 3ubstantlal amounts of irrigation `saber from a new source,
not;iceable expansion of irrigated acreage appears unlikel'~." (DEIR
111-35.) The identified problems of water availability for
irrigated agriculture (DEIR, 111-35), and the extent of federal
~6,1 Dwnership of the East Mesa (BLM D~G 22), together with BLM's 1087
~ Ldopt.ed agricultural prohibition on all but unclassified lands, and
D-L~'s *~dopted management plans for the East Mesa ~CEC (1983) and
FTHL (1990) combine to remove the justification for inclusion of
agricultural uses in the Recreation/Open Space designation as
described in DEIR (11-8) and GP-LUE (p.45-46), and the deletion of
the preservation designation (DEIR, 111-17). Furthermore, the
definitions of Important Farmland Map categories incli'~es the
hollowing caveat for each Important Farmland category: ":~ does not
include publicly owned lands for which there is an adopted policy
preventing agricultural use." (O'EIR, appendix ~, p.~-l.)
(559,435 ~cres, DEIR, 111-37) and the acreage classified as
Based on the acrea~je of land currently used for agriculture
632 Import2nt Farmland ( 560,000 acres, DEIR, 111-36) it appears that
almost all of the available Important Farmland is currently being
\4ater Resources
utilized.
River water is delivered for irrigation of more than 500,000 acres.
(p. 111-40.') How much more than 500,000 acres? How much irrigated
F DEIR states that more than 2.6 million acre feet of Colorado
agriculture is based on groundwater resources and where are these
DEIR, Imperial County General Plan 107
PAGE 217 Show Image
groundwater dependent agricultural lands located? The
identification of these groundwater dependent agricultural lands is
crucial in evaluating the environmental impacts of those existing
and any adjacent proposed agricultural developments on the
environment, particularly on sensitive biological resources.
Without an accurate and adequate discussion of the existing
physical conditions, it will not be possible to adequately address
the impacts of future agricultural operations which would be
authorized in the various land use designations including
833 Recreation/Open Space. This is particularly important in those
portions of the County where the pattern of public/private lands
are checkerboarded. DEIR fails to provide adequate detailed
discussion of the environmental setting and the physical conditions
~t th~ present. as required by CEQ~ Guidelines Sec. 15125 (a)(c).
There is no discussion or the potential incompatibilities betL~een
the proposed general plan update ~nd existed adopted State and
;--ed~t;~l Plans, including those with speci31 reference for managing
critical habitat for the endangered desert pupfish (Guidelines Sec.
15125(b)).
0 Current Livestock Production in Imperial County
existing feedlots for livestock production (DEIR 111-40,41), dairy
By f-~iling to include any map information on the location of
operations, and a~uaculture operations (DEIR, 111-41) and ~n
either the DEIR or the GP-~E, the DEIR fails to provide an .~do-quate
description of the regional setting related to livestoc.
634 production. The failure to locate ~he existing feedlots results in
an incomplete discussion of the existing physical conditions which
fnust form the base line (CE~~ Guidelines Sec. 15125(c)) for
discussion of direct and indirect impacts associated with changes
induced in population distribution and population concentration
induced by changes land use designations as required by OE~~
C-guidelines Sec. 1.5126(a).
Where are the aquaculture operations in relation to the
6351 oeo thermal esources whose direct heat could use used in their
~erations as indicated in DEIR (III-42~~
d agricultural Trends and Issues
The GP-~E and DEIR both cite statistics from 6/92 projections
of population and household numbers from the Department of Housing
;~nd Community Development for projected populations. GP-~E
636 estimates (3 population of 140,000 people in 1999 (GP-~E, p.IS),
while DEIR (p. 111-42) estimates 164,115 people in 2000. Is it
realistic to e~~ect a population increase of 24,115 persons in one
year? Why are the two figures based on the same source so
different? Which should be considered more accurate?
Leapfrogging of non-agricultural developments
( The DEIR does not e~plain how the adoption of the Rigt\t-TO'-
Farm Ordinance (DEIR, 111-46) will actually reduce or minimize the
impacts and conflicts resulting from leapfrogging development or
DEIR, Imperial County General Plan 10.5
PAGE 218 Show Image
637LLanddsua.l expansion of the urban areas into existing agricultural
~~ater Conservation and eater Transfer Programs
~hy does the DEIR fail to address the impacts of the water
conservation and eater transfer programs related to the 1989 eater
Conserv3tion agreement between lID and MED? These programs were
discussed at so(ne length in the GP-~E (p. 20, 21) and would appear
~~fltO be issues of considerable potential environmental and
~ developmental impacts in the future. Failure to discuss these
issues in the DEIR represents the failure of the DEIR to adequately
analyze the existing physical conditions that are important to the
assessment of .~9ricultural and environmental impacts and resource
const~int.s to fijture development. as required by CEQ~ C~uidelines
cc. l5~25.
FL ~hitefly -. -- ~quaculture
he whitefly problems addressed in the GP-~E (p.25) or special
Why does the DEIR sail to provide any meaningful discussion of
nvironmental issues and impacts associated with aquaculture
~dress~d in the (;P-~E (p.27-28)?
e. l97~ Plan
The DEIR fails to discuss the incompatibilities between
county pl.~nning and yeneral plan ~nd rhe conflicts created by
design~t.ing feder~l lands for agricultural development, when in
640 l'~80 portions of those federal lands were desi(~nated as an ~rea of
`-ritical Environmental Concern CEQ~ Guidelines Sec. 15125(b)
requires di3cusslon of the incompatibilities between the various
applicable r-e9ional plans.
2. Environmental Impacts. ..~griculture E.~
The DEIR fails to mention the incompatibilities related to
authorized uses of the Recreation,1Open Space land use designation
641 and adopter federal policies and plans as required by CEQ~
Guidelines Sec. 15125(b). This is particularly important where such
agricultural ijses would have off-site impacts on public lands
management mandates related to sensitive biological resources.
a. Loss of farmland to Urban uses
The diacussion of the potential loss of'agricultural lands to
urban uses in the Salton Sea/West Shores area under the proposed
General Plan t.Jpdate is meaningless. ~t no place in either the GP
or the DEIR was it possible to find any description or map
642 indicating that the lands in the West Shores/Salton City are
currently used for agricultural activities. Indeed, a recent visit
to the area suggest it is one of the most sparsely populated areas
in the County, with most of the area still undeveloped lands with
roads for transportation infrastructure, but only sparsely
scattered residences.
643F Because the impacts analysis must address the changes to the
DEIR, Imperi-~l County General Plan
PAGE 219 Show Image
r
listing physical conditions (CEQ~ Guidelines Sec. 15125
Discussion), a discussion of lost Important Farmland is not useful.
The discussion is confusing and misleading. This is particularly
true in light of the statement that: "The areas involved are
843 designated Urban under the existing 1973 General Plan." (DEIR, III-
49.) Based on the first three reasons for justification of
agricultural related impacts (that the lands are already designated
.~s urban and in fact have s~ree~s, the areas are within the cities'
spheres of influence, and urban expansion is gradual) one must
question the purpose of the confused text.
c. Land Use Conflicts Within Urban areas
c. agriculture/Urban land Use Conflicts along boundaries
~he DEIR requires Planning Department review to ensure that
any new residential or non-agricultural commercial uses located on
644 agriculturally zoned land be adjoined on at least one entire
property line to an .~rea of existing urban uses" (DEIR, 111-50,51).
There is, however, no language that suggests an actual prohibition
on leapfrogging, just a recommendation that it "should not be
approved." (DEIR, ITT-SI.)
~DF IR fails to oonsider $~t. what. point in time (with respect to
I~uture development) zoning shall be changed prom agricultural zones
Ito ones more reflective o~ the `esidential or commercial character
~f the urban land use designation as Urban build-out occurs in the
Irban land use designation. Such policies should be developed "`0
I avoid the agriculture/urban inconsistency .~nd conflict related to
the residential development restriction within the agriculture land
use designation (P~P-~E, p.39) and the agricultural land use
LjLeloPment standards and residential development standards of the
Urban land use designation (GP-LUE, p.50-52).
Neither the D~IR (Ill-Si) nor the GP-~E explain how
enforcement of the Right-To-Farm-Ordinance" would or could serve to
reduce the agricultural/Urban land use conflicts. DEIR relies on
the use of `buffer zones" to reduce conflicts, but the GP-~E (p.20)
discusses the failure of buffer zones because of the listed
problems associated with their use in the past. What policies
would ensure that any new requirements for buffer zones would meet
with more success?
d. Proposed Specific Plan areas (SPas)
The DEIR (ITT-SI ) includes the Mesquite Lake SP~ as Important
Farmland, while (DEIR (111-20) calls it an `area of poor
agricultural land" and GP-LUE (p.16) says that *` this area is
predominantly affected by soils that are high alkali which reduces
647 agriculture production. DEIR 111-52) describes the area as one of
poor agricultural land there portions have already been converted
from agricultural use to industrial use and a waste disposal area.
he DEIR thus contains internally inconsistent discussion of this
ite and the potential loss of Important Farmland and at this site
md therefore DEIR text does not accurately reflect the infor,~ation
DEIR, Imperial County C~eneral Plan ~
PAGE 220 Show Image
Li the GP or the existing conditions on the ground.. shy?
pith respect to the DEIR discussion related to mitigation of
agricultural impacts at the I-8/SR 111 SPA, Tamarack Canyon Ranch
5pm, and Bravo Ranch (DEIR, 111-53,54), ~~here are the `suitable
off-site replacement lands that could be brought into agricultural
production? that; precisely is intended by fees for an
agriculturc~l "banking' fund for preservation of Important
Farmland"? Does this refer to purchasing developmen~t rights ~o
certain lands? that are the specifics of the `on~site buffer
zones"? ~hy ~ouldn' t; t;he impacts of development at the East Border
648 Crossing SP~ be similar to those for the listed SPAs? Only the
Bravo Ranch SP~ is larger than the East Border Crossing SP~ L~ithin
the e~xisting agriculture use area. ~hy does the loss of 890 acres
of Important Farmland at the Tamarack SP~ warrant more mitigation
measures than the loss of 1,455 acres of Important Farmland at the
East Border Crossing? The conversion of agricultural lands to
commercial/industrial uses is still the conversion of agricultural
lands out of direct production, whether the commercial/industrial
uses are related to agriculture or manufacturing or residential.
Such developed lands ~auld not likely return to agricultural
productivity in the future.
~. 197; General Plan
DEIR fails to address the incompatibilities between the draft y
(~eno-ral plan Update Recreation/Open Space designation authorized
uses for agriculture and the adopted 8LM Management Plan and
adopted agricultural policy as amended in 1987 as required by CEQ~
Guidelines Sec. 15125(b) and discussed elsewhere in this response.
The t:ailure to acknowledge the existing patterns of land
~~nership/management and adopted plans and policies is best
exhibited by the following discussion related to uses on what are
in reality mostly public lands managed by BLM:
This lass of land [in East Mesa] covered by an
agricultural designation is not considered an adverse
impact. This is because the Recreation/Open Space
649 designations allows for agricultural uses including row
and field crops, orchards, aquaculture, grazing and
apiaries. No loss of actual farmland would occur by this
land use redesignation. (DEIR, 111-54.)
The authors of the DEIR are directed to the BLM (1983) East Mesa
wildlife Habitat; Management Plan, BLN (1990) "Management Strategy
far the Flat-Tailed Lizard on BLM administered Lands within the
California Desert Conservation area", and the BLM (1987) Plan
amendment Record of Decision related to multiple use class
guidelines for agriculture and the boundary changes to the Yuha
Basin ~CEC. The DEIR and GP-~E must incorporate the changes
necessary to ensure policies and land uses compatible with adopted
regional plans.
~~hy has the DEIR discussion of impacts related to agriculture
650[t:3iled to *~ddress the potential conflicts between implementation at:
DEIR Imr)erial County General Plan 111
PAGE 221 Show Image
he ~ndan~ered Species ~ct 3nd agricultural activities especially
ith ,~~spect to the potential of bringing nets lands into
i5Ojg round~ater based agricultural productivity in the vicinity of the
ISan Sebastian Marsh/San Felipe Creek ~ an area which includes
~itical habitat for the endangered desert pupfish?
3. Mitigation Measures.. ~griculture ~
D~iR provides inadequate discussion of the mitigation measures
~51 related to securing eplacement Important ~armland~~. `there is
such land to be found and `~~h~t water sources will provide water to
bring the area into productivity?
C T9~~~IC/CIRCtJL.~TION - . - C.~'~vI~ONMC-NT.~L ~N~L~SIS
The ~ tate th~ ~ ~epara te oonsu 1 tan t *~as ni red to r~v lew
r--ansport~~tion impacts - but what is the assessment of the Couc~ty 3
Public corks Department? Has the DEIR considered and included all
the input f--cm the County Public corks Department in its evaluation
of the tr.~nsportation irn~acts and plans for the General Plan
~ teffi
~- ~~isting Condi~lon;. .T3fftc/Circulation ~
Thi3 DF:'P-. dl~cu~zLcn ot: ;r~nsp c--tat ion related impacts
.~ijlt~nci from harqec~ pat.~~rn of de\,elopmenr ~nd resi~eni;-~al
Q1--Owth resulting t:i~cm the genc-rs~l olan uoda~e and changed land use
designations is certain ~.o o'e inadequate because as of 3/l3/?3 the
12. Ur-ban .~rea Plans ~nd 3 ~mmunity ~r-ea Plans and their associated
?~53 maps disc.ussed in tne ;P-~UE (p.3,o) have not y~t been released for
pub 1 Ic comment and rc.v ie'.~, put-per tedly because they have not ye ~
teen ccmpiet;~d. ons~qtienT;ly the transpcr~aticn -and infr~astructure
imp.~cts ~nd needs cannot be realistically or adequately *~ddressed
by the )EIR until such t;ime as the missing area plans have been
comole tea - If the plans haven' t; yet been completed, how `las
`~Jilldan ~:~ssociates ~ble re prepare the t£.-anspertaticn analysis?
DEIR rails to present an adequate or even reasonably accurate
discussion of existing con~i tlens with respect to the various
transportation issues as required by CEa~ guidelines Sec. 15125(c) -
The DEIR fails to discuss the present levels of service and
.:~4 e~istIng routes of railroads and air tr.~nspertation including the
location of airports. shy? Bure ly the use of rail transportation
should be .~ major consideration in the location of industrial
operations and for the transport of pecole and goods to and from
the County.
F-- ~ltheugh these aspects of zhe transportation infrastructure
were also ignored in the Circulation Element of the OP, they are
discussed in the OP Noise Element and in the DEIR in environmental
analysis for noise (DEIR T¶I-~~, ;~,75,75,7~). the potential for
future increased air t.--ansport -jas also discussed in relation to
DEIR. imperial County O~nersl Plan 112
PAGE 222 Show Image
t;he Holtville ~ir-Strip sP~ (DEIR, 111-22) How is it possible
t:hat the preparers of the DEIR felt it necessary to discuss noise
55 impacts of railroads and airports but then fail to include either
mode of transportation in the discussion of circulation/
transportation?
d. Public transportation
What is the purpO5~ of providing a laundry list of public
transportation route numbers (DEIR, 111-60) without giving routing
information for any bus routes other than saying two routes go from
HoItville to the Naval ~ir ~acility? What are the areas,
neighborhoods that are physically served at the present time?
Wh;~ ~a3n' h discussion or air transportation and airport
locations, railroad lines and rail terminals provided as a
component of the public tr.3nspor ta tion infrastructure'?
2. Environmental Impacts . . Traffic/Circulation E~
Why ar~ no airports or scenic highways shown on ~ig.8 for the
Circulation and cenic Highways Plan? Why doesn t Fig S indicate
the Q~opo~e~ na~or str~et network proposed to support the
oopulat.ion ~ ~~()0O in the Hot Mineral s~a/8ombay Seach community
~ to t;h~ ~ of Salton Sea or the network necessary to *aupport th~
l.~rge ~ acre Urban area of West Shores/Salton Citi to ~he
`.~est 3 ida (it ~ ton Sea? Surely ~ach of the proposed high
~~np~jlation ~ ty *aIC35 will need riore then 5ust the single state
highway p3~~inCi through it.
Wh\' does disctjssion of the environmental impacts fail to
include discussion responsive to the concerns specificall;'
addressed by rhe 9/~0/92 letter rorm ~he Riverside County Planning
Department? How will the ctianges in development patterns jncludin~
new, improved or upgraded roads for automobile travel near
58 Riverside County affecr Riverside County and the planned uses in
Riverside County? How will planned uses and changed land use
designations 1 n Imperial County Linpac t R ive rside (;ounty'? Why is
there no discussion of regional rail transit as a means of reducing
dependence on automobiles ~or transportation?
The DEIR is inadequate because it fails to address
alternatives to the use of the private automobile as the dominant
means of transport within the County. Why is there no discussion
of potential bus transportation and routes throughout the County to
provide transport between places of living and places of employment
and commercial activity? Why is there no discussion of major
~59 routes for the travel of slow-moving oversized farm machinery and
truck routes for the transport of goods including agricultural
products? Where is discussion of rail freight routes and the need
for new rail spurs to accommodate the projected growth in the GP-
SUE? With all the deficiencies in the GP-CE, the DEIR
environmental analysis of traffic and circulation issues is
woeful 1 y inadequate.
DEIR Imperial County C~eneral Plan 113
PAGE 223 Show Image
The D~~R environmental analysis related to traffic/circulation
~~pears to have been prepared in a vacuum unrelated to the changed
land use designations and authorized uses within each land use
designation. The analysis is unrelated to the relationship between
new locations for employment opportunities and areas for new
residential growth; unrelated to existing and future needs for
public transportation including possible use of rail transport of
660 goods and people; unrelated to the relationship of residential and
economic activity in Imperial county `and their relationship to
existing and planned uses in the adjoining Riverside County. How
is the circulation pattern and any projected needed expansion or
upgrades of the transportation infrastructure related to the growth
inducing potential of new land use designations and the locations
of new residential and industrial/ commercial activity?
~hy is there no serious or detailed discussion of the impac~~
cf the nets east. 6order Crossing SP~ and the nets port of entry and
impacts resulting from the need for a transportation infrastructure
~o be developed to accommodate the projected commercial/
indu.s~riaj/warehousing activities anticipated and discussed for
that. area? This omission from ~~IR Traffic Circulation L~ is
ine.~cus~ble Ln light of the following discussion of the s..3)ne und~~
the Noise ~ in the following section. The Morse ~ states:
The Circulation and Scenic Hi9hw~y5 Element. includes
~~c'.al and policies to expand railro~a service implement
ral l S?. rv ice be t;w~'~n ~he in te mona l border cross i n~
in Calexxco .~nd the cachella ~Ialley, ~nd encourage t~e
use of railroad service to minimize long haul truc.~
traffic. ~f implemented, these goals a-nd- policies *,Joulc~
increase the potential railway noise impact, and could
reduce potential roadway noise impact. (C~~IR ~¶J-7~.
~hy doesn't the discussion of tra7Tic/circulation impacts
reveal the infrastructure developments tha~ are later ~iscusse~ in
the ~ for Noise within the D~~R? \`~here I~ there any discussion of
662 irnoacts related to increased copulation densities and travel for
employment in response to changed land `ise desicnations and their
growth inducing impacts?
~\4hy does the CirculatIon map (DEIR ~ig.8) fail to locate :he
663~nti fied potential scenic highways as the title suggests?
~hy doesn't ~ig. 3 include the location of any of the unpaved
roads that provide access to the major gold mining and sane and
gravel operations in various parts of the County? tiany of these
unpaved routes represent routes of heavy t~avel by employees and/or
commercial vehicles, including trucks used for the transpor: 0 the
664 extracted resources. ~ times this seems like a never-enoing
parade of gravel trucks to and from the sand and gravel p15 In S\4
l~mperial County. The heavy truck use of unpaved roads can be a
Ima jor factor in increased particulate levels of sand and dus in
air.
DEIR imperial County General 9lan 114
PAGE 224 Show Image
Why does ~ig~3 and the accompanying D~IR text fail ~o locate (
ind evaluate the unpaved routes of travel that lead from paved
roadways to residen~ial/recrea~ional developments on the east side
of the County and the potential for additional such developments
elsewhere in the County under the proposed changed Recreation/Open
Space designation?
The discussion of traffic/circulation environmental effects
ignores C~Q~ Guidelines (Sec l~LZS(c) and associated Discussion)
requirement that the environmental analysis evaluate the impacts of
the proposed changed land use designations and growth inducing
potential of the proposed General Plan Update Needed is an
~6 ~v.~lu~tjon of the impacts on the existing conditions as zh'~y exist
today, not compared only to L~hat could be expected at build-out of
the existing General plan In the ~ discussion under the heading
197; G~~neral Plan it seems obvious that the environmental
inpacts of the proposed Circul~tiofl Cl~m~nt sill be greater than
under the unrealied 1973 Plan
Dic.~cussion of potential impacts related to the Holtville ~~r-
Strip SP~ should be addressed in the Traffic/Circulation ~ because
~he noise impacts of this proposed use is discussejd in t:he Noise ~
~IR 111-79) and in earlier di~3cussiOfl i~~I£~ (IIi-~Z).
The reader is referred 0 rhe discussion of Circulation (
o~8 .`:-lemcnr of he Gener.~l Plan Update ifl the comments in response to
yffiat 5ep~~rate volume.
D. NOISE ~~V1RONMENT~L ~N~LYSIS
In 3ddi tion to the I is ted sensitive noise receptors, most
wildlife is sensitive to various Ievels of noic which has been
~ocumented to alter behavior, m.3tlng, .:~warenesz of predators, aQ.~
direct hearing loss. The general public tirs~ became aL~are of much
~f this information on noise during the period of public discjssion
md review for the BLM 1990 CDC~. riuch research ~as done on the
biological impacts of noise associated L~~th off~road vehicle
activity in the California Desert.
L. existing Conditions - - Noise ~
aircraft Noise
How is it possible that there can be discussion o~ existing
conditions related to noise associated pith aircraft and railroads
in this section of the DEIR, and yet only 3 few pages earlier the
traffic/circulation section failed to include these sources of
noise as being related to transportation? ~hy does DEIR Fig.9
ocate an airport at the junction of I-~ and SR 98 near Ocotillo,
)`71 then none is listed in the DEIR III-~9 text? In reality, there is
no airport near Ocotillo at present. The DEIR tails to include on
F'g.9 or otherwise in the text, reveal the locations of air#iel~s
~72 tj~ed ~or agricultural crop spraying operations mentioned on DEIR
DEI~ Imperial County t;ene ra 1 Qian ~
PAGE 225 Show Image
67~~I-69 as being sources of noise.
It could not be inappropriate to include the majority of the
6731 te-
PAGE 226 Show Image
the same title omits the location of any proposed landfill despise
~he Figure title (DEIR ~I~-l5l). IL is obviously a sensitive
771:
~sue, but one that should be dealt pith consistently in both the
Dr~ft General Plan and DEIR
If the DEIR is going to discuss the noise impacts associated
*.~ith r~iload spur- to the landfill, it must adequately discuss the
noise impacts on sensitive L~ildlife species in the area. This is
78 or: concern because the listed desert tortoise 8LM proposed
Chuck~alla Habitat Management area includes the area in L~hich the
proposed landfill is located.
Fm- Mjtigation Measures - - - Noise E~
791 HoLe ~AJ~ll the preparation of acoustical analyses (DE~£R
~:0nc3t~ serve to noise impacts on sensi~iv~ !--~c3ptors
luding sen.3i tire ~jologic.;3l species?
~- OULTUR~L RESOURCES
?. Environmental Impacts - Cultural Resources E~
The DEIR text (~II-~47) fails to reflect the info--rn~tion on
DF.IR Fig. ~ r(~lat.ed to sensitive cultural resources ~nd 1:3115 to
r9tl$ct the information in the C;P-O/OSE on cultural r~source-3. Ii~
cddi.tin.n ~o ~he DEIR text.. the GP-C/OSE states that:
Other areas that .3re hj(~hly sensitive include r'-~
~icxni. ties ot . . - 1.OL~er- Rorr~~o Valley ~xr.end1n(J. ~ to
the southL~esternmost oortion of the Counry (
;~~ghL~;3y S6,
~en~ered around Ocot-illo a portion of t;he Pilot Knob
~ east of Glarni3 and the entIre eastemmost Qortion
of the County including the Palo Verde Mountains an~ ~he
~re~ bet~~een O~ilby Road and the Colorado River. The
only non-agricultur3'l areas that- are expected not to
contaIn resources are the immediato- east and rest 51~C
or: rhe Salton Sea and the ~lgodones. Sand Dunes. (Ge-
C/OSE p.l~.)
The C~~~-t~/OSE discussion continues to include additional c~reas .~hich
are less sensitive, but could require additional archeological
studies -
\4hy has the text of the DEIR (2. Environmental Impacts, ~.III-
L~7) deke~ed so much discussion of areas identified in the G~-C/OSE
(p.15) as highly sensitive for cultural resources? ~y failing
to accurately and adequately describe in the DEIR existing Qhysical
conditions which mere identified in the GP-C/OSE, the DEIR Cultu(31
Resources E.~ has failed to satisfy the requirements or: CE~~
381 Guidelines Sec. 15125 to ~include a description of the environment
in the vicinity of the project1 as it exists before the
commencement of the project. - - For the environmental analysis to
exclude the environmental setting ~AJ~th respect to cultural
resources described in the GP-C/OSE is more than a little
def~cienr. This is especially confusing because at the bottom of
the same CEIR p.111-147 the area around Ocotillo and the
D~IR Imperial County General Plan 117
PAGE 227 Show Image
68l~msitteir~manoison ~or-tion of the County are mentioned under discussiOn of
measures.
By failing to include information in the GP-C/OSE, the D~IR
reac~~d the erroneous conclusions that. Under the proposed General
Plan most future development activities could occur in existing
f~rmland and residenti~l areas no significant Lmpacts to
prehistoric cultural resources are expected to occur at these
682 loc~tions.: (D~IR 111-147.) pith a ~uick review of the intensive
agricultural and development activities that L~ould be authorized
within the Recreatlon/Open Space designation and a review of the
three applicable BLtl DIGs, together pith the text and maps of the
G;P-(;/()0E1 ~ne will reach a very different conclusion about the
ootential for significant impacts to prehistoric cultural resources
.~jth build-out under the proposed Q;eneral Plan.
he C)~1R shotild adc~re~? the potential jmpacts on cultural
esources related to .~.`
PAGE 228 Show Image
t;here is discussion of some of the above listed infrastructure
components, none is shorn on any D~IR figures.
CEQ~ Guidelines contain the following recommendations for a
program EIR:
~ program EIR will be most helpful in dealing with
subsequent :~ctivities if it deals with the effects of the
progr.~m as specifically ~nd as comprehensively as
possible. With a good and detailed analysis of the
program, many subsequent activities could be found to be
`~jithin the scope of the project described in the program
~ and no further environmental documents *h~ould be
i85 r~quir~d. (CE~~ Guidelines Sec. ~5l68(c)(5).)
additionally if :~ Program ~IR is to be incorporated by reference in
~titure 5ubsequent ~ or Negative Declarations, it must have been
detailed ~nough to deal pith regional influences, secondary
`~r.fects, (~umul.~tive impacts, broad al terna~ives. .
t.;uidelines Sec. ~5~63(d)(2).)
8y failing to map the locations of important components of the
infr-3structure, the D~IR fails to ~.ddress the imQacts related to
the existing inf r..~strijcture, ~he need for expansion of e.'
PAGE 229 Show Image
687~desi~nated on some map, how can their impacts be addressed in
anything but a general way?
~hy doesn'b the DEIR include the locations of the proposed
Regional Landfills on Fig. 18 of that title when it discusses the
specific locations of the two proposed landfills in the text on the
688 facing page? Is the omission intentional or just inat~~ntion to
detail? ~hv does the map of the same title in the GP-LUE ~ig. 3
show the location of the Mesquite Landfill?
~s noted elsewhere in this response both the G~ and the DEIR
treat the proposed regional landfills in an inconsistent manner.
YJhy? I~ it. because the County has not yet completed the
689 prep3r..~tion of its Integr3 ted Waste Management Plan ~nd comoleted
its independent site evaluation criteria? In any event, the
z,~uifler~ou~ inconsistencies in both documents should be co r rec ted.
DEIR discussion of the 8LM request for closure of county
oper~ted landfills on 8LM lands if regional landfills are sitea in
the County (DEIR 111-150) is inconsistent ~j~th the suggestion in
~ SP-L~JE (p .~Z) that the County has landfill capacity unt~l the yea
?:c'0~. The discussion in these two documents snoul~ be consisr~n7..
`ji th respect to suture solid waste disposaL ISSUCS
;~. electric ~.nd Telephone
The ~lectric~l power gener.~ting racilites 3~C fl.~jor -r~i~~mission
*-orriaors c~hould be mapped in both the ~ ;~na zhc ~r~-CC..
Inclusion of transmission corridors in the GP-~~ 1.5 not sufficient
to provide a reference as a part of the infrastructure re'.~uirementz
of the Circulation Element.
The DEIR ~houid include discussion of why power is mported by
691 1mperi~l Irritation District (DEIR, 1II-l~4) when geothermal
resources power is exported in an amount sur-~c~ent to 5upply
4Q0~00O persons (GP-GE, p.8). .dll ~eneratin~ facilities, includi£~(~
hydroelectric drops and substations should be iocate~ on an
i nf r~s t ruc tu re flap.
there are microwave relay facilities located within the
County? These should also be mapped.
~f. eater service and ~vailabili ty
tThe DEIR information about the ~ua~t~ty of dditional
692 ~availability of Colorado River water over an~ aoove that determined
~hethGeP Colorado Ri',er Compact of l~22 is incor~istent with that in
-~E Table I which says 0,92 ri~F when available
eater Delivery and Supply
Discussion of the EP~ order to lID re the Safe DrinKing \4ater
.~ct should be updated prior to release of the inal SIR. There
should be 3 map showing the main canals and drainage ditches that
ii~ke uo the lID water delivery system. No such mao was included ii~
DEIR Imoerial County general Plan 120
PAGE 230 Show Image
GP-WE either. Why? (
Why is there no discussion of the groundwater resources and
watershed t:or the communibies of Ocotillo, Nomirage, and Yuha and
the scattered residences that rely on the Ocotillo-Coyate Wells
Groundwater Basin, a sole source aquifer in the SW portion of
~4 Imperial County? Why doesn't the DEIR at least refer to the GP-
ClOSE "Open Space for the Protection of Public Health and `5afety
which includes but is not limited to areas for the protection of
t~iater quality" (Gp-C/OSE. p.~2). and its associated objectives 8.11
and S.1~2 (GP-C/OSE p.41)?
Why~doesn'~ the DEI~ indicate whether the Souther California
W~t;er Company that serves Niland and Calipat~ia usc~ Colorado River
water or qroundwater? If it is Colo"~do River water, wna~ is the
~~~istin~ entirlement?
What is the soL':ce of c~rinking water for Bard? The DEIR text
96~ (III- .60) indicate.s that it is not the local groundwater that is
t:or other domestic and' landscaping purposes.
g. $ewa~e Treatment
~hy doesn t the DEIR identify the communities such as
Ocotillo, Nomi".~ge, Hot Mineral S~a which ?.."C identit:ied in the L.~P
S nor. h~v'.ng any sewage treatmenr. 7.3cilities ~ which r~l7
(
pri'~arily on *3ep tic systems? Why does neir.her the C1P or the DE;~
indicate the nethod of sewage~disposal far P;~lo Verde?
h. Schools
Why does the DEIR fail to .:\ddress the capacity 3nd rest"aints
~t: the (;3lexlco school 3y.3tem which is located in the par of rhe
981 t~ounty which woul& appear to have the most rapid growth in the
~rure? Why is no information given for the numbers of studenrs Lfl
the P,,3iexico 3nd Imperial school districts?
What `.~as the outcome of the ll/~Z' bond issue t:o- he
99 Wesrmorland School District? How will new schools be funded for
~estmorl~nd and Meadows Union districts it: the bond issues fail'?
there are the San Pasqual Valley district schools? What is
~~\-the capacity of the Holtville schools'?
i. Parks and Recreation
Why aren't the Wildlife `Refuges end park areas of DEIR 111-166
eluded in the discussion of E~ for biological resources?
j. Health Care
~re the health care facilities within 1m~erial OcunDy
02 adequate? The Calexico Hospital has been facing a series of very
serious problems that threaten its future. How many beds did
Cale'
PAGE 231 Show Image
arizona or to San Diego or Riverside Counties for medical care?
`that; ~re t:he existing impacts on County health care facilities as
resulb of the large seasonal population in the tinter months?
702 ~hy does t;he D~IR fail ~o discuss health and safety issues related
~o the GP-C/CSE attractive nuisances such as abandoned mine sires
and inherently dangerous off-road vehicle activity in the County,
especially during tinter holiday L~eekends?
2. ~nvironmental impacts Public services/Safety ~
f. eater Service and availability
The D~IR fails to discuss at all the availability of
grotJndL~ater resourc3s for development in the ocotillo/Nomirage
Commun'ity aea and the very serious resource constraints of that
resource `.~ i :h respect to ~a te r qua 1 i ty/t~a te r quan ~i ty issues. These
703 serious issues have been jocumented by more than L~ years o~ semi-
annual moni roring by USC~S and additional studies by the County `s
consul t.~i~t . t also fails to ~~e(~u3tely discuss the potential
impacts c'f Zmperial County Urban DroL~th in the rest Shores/Salton
City urban area and Hot Mineral sap/Bombay Beach based on
qroundL~at;er resources pumped from L~ells in Riverside County.
~h. ~~hy are impacts on Calexico schools to rally ignored in
I(~isc~1ss ion of impacts on schools then there is already a
i~ni ~ ic~nt if~cease in housin(~ on County lands .~d~acent to
7( :a~.~~ic.o: ~hy s're s:;cnools in Lmper~at not .-nent.ic'ned ~nen D~TR Ill
L ~ r t icr no t~c.1' rha t LiilpC r i a 1 schools are a 1 ~eady ope a 1; i ng a ~
capac~ hy?
~hy are the proposed ~andfi 1 la at Mesoui te and Chocolate
705 ~,1Ountain discussed under cxi 3 t mg condi tions ra rher than under
~stjes of env ~ ronmental impac~c- or mi tigation measures?
Con rary t;o the assc~r t; ion jnder mitigation measures related to
r~i ephone hhe phone company is not~~o~l igated to serve the
706 comi)luni hy by providing facil i ties as needed. The phone company
(only pr~vicies service to those `.~ho can afford ro pay for the
~~rv ices.
~Is he reason the increased growth in population L~ill not
esult in significant impacts on health care services because so
707 many Imperial County residents seek health care from providers
ted ou ts ide Imperial Coun ty'~
JTiying that future projects 3hould be evaluated for seismic safetv
708~CDCIR, I-~:-l75) is not the same as requiring such evaluation. ~hy
jffis the D~IR made such evaluation optional?
A ~IR ~U~L¶TY ~
L. ~xistin~ Conditions
ecause it ~iils to address o.M~Q problems associated `pith ORV
t'09~b LmPI~ discussion of existing conditions is inadequare in part
Imoeral County C,eneral n.~an l~2
PAGE 232 Show Image
4
~ctivi~y, fugitive dust resulting from travel on unpaved roads, (
dust generat;ion 3ssociated with extractive operationS such as sand
3nd gravel operations and mining activibies. .dll PMIO values in
Table k7 exceed the California annual mean of ~O rnjcrogr3ms/cubic
meter in Table 16, and the Counby has been designated a non-
attainment area for PMlO (D~IR 111-180). Why is there no current
PMLO monitoing in Calexico there ai quality is often noticeably
bad? The ; s ~/l7/93 article entitled *~Report
slams air district: State analyses f3ults enforcement, monitorin(~
pollution in Valley' states the problem well and is not encouraging
with respect to 3dd~essing the need to improve monitoring ~nd air
quality *within the County.
What do the nurnber~ in Table 18 mean? What are the uni~5 of
measure for aach of th_ categories of pollutants? What
specifically i~ meant.. ~y the ca~~gory `Natural Sources for source
categories o*t: ~ollut~nI;s? Does that category include dust
pollution resulting ~rofn sand and gravel oQerations, mining and OR'/
10 activity on public lands and unpaved routes of travel? Why does
the D~IR fail to provide meaningful discussion of the information
provided in the ~pp~ndix ~ of the (;P-C/OS~ ~-`? `.~i th r~spect to
mining impact on ?~ir q~jality'? s~p*-c/OS~ noted that: open o~
surf.~ce mining nay produce e'
PAGE 233 Show Image
on the mixed land use and balanced housing and jobs strategies of
the ~ir duality attainment Plan, L~hen the implementation programs
of the Draft GP Land Use Element are inconsistent ~`~ith those
strategies and L~ould prohibit the implementation of such programs?
Hc~~ ~auld incorporation of the ~ir Quality attainment Plan
714 strateqies L-1, L-2, and L-3 be incorporated into the Land Use
Element? ~hy hasn't this already been done alonq `pith the
necessdry chanqes in the development standards of the various land
use desiqnations if it is ecommended in the DEI~? ~hy didn't ~he
proposed General P lan Update resolve such external inconsistencies
oefore it ~as released for public reviet~?
~ha~ specific miti~at.ion measures are proposed to reduce the
7151 ajiounts of .~ir pollution related to 3qr ~culturak operatIons `3:3
~~nt.ifjed in this environmental *~naly~i
~hy shou 1 dn' t rn i I; i gi~ t ~ on measu re~~ o~ i no 1 u ded ~ n i C h ~ou 1 d
rc~s~ond to the failures of the local ~P( D to imolement measures
related to monitoring and enforcement ot ai qu(-3li ty standards and
disctjssed in the resort of the State ~ii Resouroco Board as
described in the ~ y. Press article of ~/17/9~? That recort Cizas
-~ijt-dated regulations failure to do required inspections an~
7 ~ionitoring, ~.`3ilure to conduct requi-ed ~nnual tests failure t~
~ntoroe rec-u~a~ions; hy .~ssessinq penal ties for violations, .-~rc.
`shy ,-houldn' t the .~P'D oFficer `OC r~turne~ to ohe jurlaiColon 0
he Fnvtronmen~al Health ~fftcer .~s LO ~as .Dr~~in~1 ~y? "Jculdn'
such an action remave the potential for oonflic~ or ,nte.test thai
exists a~ present L~ith the *~PCD residing in the C~epartment ~it~
oversight .3nd permitting related to the activi ties that represenr
rhe major sources of air pollution `£~ithin ~he Counts?
~ V~3U~L :~E3otjRCr3
\4hy does the DEIR ignore the visual im~aczs of ohe proQosed
regional landfills discussed on ~¶I- 150 and r;he potenr~aL
~.dd~tional industrial uses at Plaster City and in the ~1esquite Lake
717 present industrial/future 3P~ industrial designation? ~re ohe
pre~arers of the DEIR so enamored of landfills that they see no
visual imQacts from the proposal to create above ground landfills'~
`~~T ER (;U~LITY
roost of the informarion in the discussion of ~ater ~uality is
taken from the eater Element which ~as based on the ~~ater Plan~
7~ orepared for the County by Terra Nova Planning and Research, Inc.
of Palm Springs, a document ~hich ~as not included in ~~pendix C,
the~a ~er Element Bibliography or in the HEIR. \4hy ~as no
ffi~ttribution made for the original ~crk?
1. Existing Conditions
~ ImoerT3l Count\ P~ener~l Plan
PAGE 234 Show Image
F- Surface eater
`191 ~hy are there no maps of the existing lID eater distribution
Lzstem including major canals, major drains?
~4hy does the ~1amo River have higher fecal coliform counts
`.~hen it reaches the Salton Sea (Table 2~, DEIR, 111-201) than it
does at the international border( Table 21, D~IR 111-199)? The
`20 tables raise questions about Imperial County so~jrces of o,ollution
and indicate different conditions than the text of D~IR 111-193.
~hy doesn't the text match the information in the tables?
G rou nd~a te r
DFIR di~cusz-ion of groundwater rescurce~ in the Ocotillo area
is ina~e(~ua.te and inaccurate because it -~lies on out-dated
information from a report more than ~5 yearc~ old :~nd ignores the
r~5ult3 01: 3ubseauent monitoring by USGS and others. For lore than
1~ years USC~S has conducted a semi-annual moni coring Qrog~.~m which
tiionit;ors L~~1ter lCv.215 and collects and .analy~es eater quality
--samples from selected sells in the Ocotillo-Coyote ~Jells Basin.
Reliance on the out-dated- 1977 USGS report laads to erroneous
~ssijmp tions about. the quantity of groundL~ tar available for
develo~inent To 3ccu ra rely ~ t;he ~ la~il i ty of groundL~a tar
for development requires consideration of ~he patterns of federal
v-s. ~riv.:~tC land owner-ship, ~at~arns ~ *oump;~a-a , underlying
c.~eotoqic~t forii~~tions and ev~lua ring the -esut rs (~f ~ar..er ~-~uality
.~nd wit;? level i~oni~ori-ng.
721 Based on studies and monitoring of h~ grouncwat-?r -esourczs
in SW Imperial County by USGS1 it has been determinec; that even
though t4~er? is 5ignificant groun~watar of good quality in the
~0otillo-O.oyote Wella basin, a number of areas `,~ithin that; basin do
not have potable quality groundL~ater. ~Skrivan, l97~, p.13, 19; and
suosa~uant monitoring.) ~ review of Skrivarn (p.13) and current.
uSGS monitoring of the well ar Coyote Wells 5dq-9C5~ that he easing
of proJections ot tuture growth on the assumo~io ns an~ modeling in
the p977 USGS study is to base it on wishf'~l -hinking rather than
the more serious limitations that have been revealed by additional
studies and semi-annual monitoring. Studies of the basin have
--evealed that the underlying geology is much more complex than
originally thought and monitoring data have indicated that some of
the original assumptions were erroneous and more optimistic than.
borne out by semi-annual monitoring- (Harmon analysis of USGS
studies and data, 1993.)
Why does the DEIR fail to discuss the quality of groundwater
resources relied upon for domestic usa by the residents of the Palo
Verde Community area1 and Bard and Winterhaven (D~IR 111-160, 221)?
722 It is presumed that the water is seepage from the Colorado River.
Why does the D~IR fail to discuss the reasons that water quality in
the Bard area is of such a quality as to be unsuitable for
drinking? (D~IR, 111-160, 221.)
D~IR, Imperial (;ounty General Plan -`25
PAGE 235 Show Image
\4hy does the DEIR fail to discuss any issues associated pith
the L~ater qualIty or eater quanti t;y of the communi ties on both
7231 sides of the Salton Sea which rely on sell eater from sells in
Riverside County .3nd supplied by the Coachella `lal Icy Nater
LLstrict? (DEIR, 111-160.)
~. Environmental Impacts - - Nater Quality E~
The DEIR discussion of environmental impacts of implementation
of the general plan update on groundL~ater quality is dangerously
inadequate. The analysis is also based on false assumptions and
out-dated information and a lack of reliance on current data for
£iroundwater resources. The DEIR discussion of eater quality
impacts simply ignores the authorized uses of va--ious land use
desig'na tions, including .?Au thorization of agriculture in the
~ec--ea tion/Open Sp;~ce designation - Nhy? Consequently the DEIR
ignores the potential impacts of groundL~ater based agriculture on
groundL~a ter quail ty - Nhy? The :~reas there *3'gricu 1 ture represents
a potential threat to groundwater quality are not those areas of
planned urbani ~tion in areas surrounded by agricultural uses but
the out v~ ng ~ r ~ that ~ re g rou ndL~a te r dependent - Nhy?
`Aihy roe- ~ DEIP~ f~i l to *~ccurately address the L~ater
q~Jaiity/~dt~r (4u~nrity ~nterrelation within the Oco~illo-Covote
~e1ls ~ It ,hould be Qainfully obvious th(~t there are very
*.er~ou~ urn t ti~ns on potential growth and potential i~ater use on
or iv.~ t~ l-~i~d ~ih~n ~nd i 1: the prep~rers of the DEIR are ~i 1 ling to
con~id~r th~ ~ t~ nbtained fom the `JSGS semi--dnnual monitoring of
`.~ater l~vet~ ~nd ~.~ter quality. Nhy has the DEI0. chosen to ignore
current monitoring data and use that data to update the
inderstandings .~nd assumptions of the 1977 USGS report? Nhy has
the di.scuss~on of groundwater quality issues in the Ccotillo-Coyote
Nells Ground~~ater Basin ignores the kno~~n locations of p6or quality
and nonpo tab I ~ c~ua 1 i ty g ro~i nd~a te r to the south, east, and north of
I~Iomir.i(~e? Nhy has the ;EIR ignored discussion o1: the changing
eater quality in a monitored ~e11 at Coyote Neils? Nhy has the
DEIR ignored the st~idies 01: the underlying geology? Nhy aren ` t all
these interrelated factors considered in the projected ootential
.~ro~th and the resulting potential for serious groundL~ater quality
deterioration at build-out?
Nhy doesn't the DEIR discuss 9roundVJater duality issues at Painter
Go r~e?
F Nhy has the DEIR ignored the potential Impacts of the proposed
7251 regional landfills identified (DEIR, III-l~0) on their underlying
Lffiound~ater resources?
F To assert than the impacts of the general plan update could
result in less \4ater quality impacts is to ignore the CEQ~
7' ?~uidelines Sec. 15125 Discussion which requires that impacts be
examined based on he existinq level of develooment today rather
than just by comparing potential impacts a~ buil~-out under each
QEIR, Imperial County Gener.~l 0lan 126
PAGE 236 Show Image
7 - (1982) 131
3. Mitigabion Measures . .~ater Quality E~
Ho~ sill continued monitoring of the groundwater condi Lions of
the OcoLillo-Coyote sells basin serve to extend the life of the
~ basin `then k5 years of monitoring data has been ignored by the
`~` County to date? `that threshold levels of water quality shall
trigger corrective actions or the implementation of a moratorium?
that corrective actions are proposed, how shall they be monitored
and enforced?
~~Jhy is there no requirement for watershed designation and
7281Q rotettion? that land uses or commercial activities should be
~~ohibited as being incompatible over a sole~source aquifer?
~hy are there no monitoring programs proposed for other
qroundwater basins that are essential to the continued growth and
survival of those groundwater dependent communities? ~hy is there
no proposal for a cost~sharing joint-powers agreement for
729 moni or ifl~~ of the goundw~ter b3sin in Riverside County upon which
~ommuni ties ~ the Sal ton Sea rely ~hy are there no criteria
est3blished Izor potential needs to increase rather than decrease
lot sic to ~e con~ist~ni; wi'th 9roundw?:~~ei r-.~sou roe constraints?
73O~ ~`~ha. t *~pec ~ LO ~O ~..ions *;~ha 11 be t:~ken when moni tor mg shows C
~jter ~ualit;y det~~rior3tion?
\4hy does the D~IR fail to include any potential water budget
and projections for potential build-out use equiring groundwater
as the source of water for development;? ~ithout a detailed
discussion of the actual number of potential residences and
domestic :~nd commercial Jsage fo each of the communities or each
basin 0 :~ubh.aain that; will ~upply the water source for ru Lure
731 development n Ocoti 1 b-Coyote wells groundwater basin,
l~est;/Shores/ C-alLon City tirban ared-, Hot ML neral Spa/Bombay Beach,
~elici ty Palo Verde Bard -end \4interhaven, how can any effective
planning for these groundwater dependent communities take place?
L~hy doesn't the D~iR provide the kind of detailed information about
groundwater --esou roes currently relied on as it does for Colorado
river based developments?
Given the projected population of 75,QQQ for the Hot Mineral
Spa area in addition to the unknown population projections t:or the
C-l,840 acres designated fo- the rest Shores/Salton City Urban area,
is all the projected growth to be based on Riverside County
732 Groundwater Resources? If so, what are the water quantity and
water quality resource constraints? How will the projected
Imperial County development near the Riverside County line imoact
water quality for Riverside County groundwater users? VJhy doesn' t
the D~IR include a comprehensive discussion of this issue and how
it; related to ~iversi~e County Plans fo- uses based on the same
r~ ~IR Imperial County Gener3i *~lan 127
PAGE 237 Show Image
7~ groundwater basin?
V\ G~OLOGY/SC~LS
~l. Existing Conditions
733I~hY is the E~ an soils and geology so superficial by
~~mpar ison to the iflform<3tion in ~he GP'?
~. Environmental Zmpacts
~~hy does the DEIR fail to include the map on landslide
.~ct;ivit'y which was included in the QP-S/PSE (p.7)? Vihy does the OP
include such a map depicting landslide activity on an *~lluvial fan
in t'h~e Ocotillo area? ~~hat evidence is there that there has been
ecent. landslide ..3ctivity of concern an this ~lluvi3l fan? \?~hy
shouldn' t. the County ci ther povide references indicating the
source c)f information or correct the maps?
~ asian
`4hy does the DEIR (111-216) ignore the very serious poblems
of wind erosion of disturbed soils at various lac~~ions within
1nn.er~.~i County ~5 identified as a major cause 0 PrilO .~ir
o,ollu ~~on in Imper ~ County? because the County j<~ ~n area with
very limii;ed rain~a1l. wind erosion of disturbed ~o'ls i~ay' be maro
serious th.~ii elsewhere. Sheridan has discussed i;me Of oblems or
ZOil ~ro~ion on ~isturbed desert 30i15 in h~s numerous ~
~hy do the FIR .~nd OP pesent such inconsistent dizc ~~on of *3a~hl
LLros~on resulting from the wind erosion of disturb~a airs?
Floods
I.6~hy does the DEIR conclude that there is little Qa~ent~al far
736 tlood darn£aoe in the eastern portion of the County, then the
QrOpoSed Oener3l Pln envisions an Urban area *at ~oth ~interhaven
.3nd FeLicity?
\4hy does rhe DEIR fail to consider the potential for flooding
from heavv r.~ins in the western mountains? This has happened in
the past wren the Pinto `4ash carried flood waters that ~amaoed the
`~4estside ~ain Canal and resulted in flooding. ~hy doesn't the DEIR
address the potential for flooding in the Ocotillo townsite and in
the Namir.~~e subdivision in S~'J Imperial County since both of these
floodways are shown on DEIR Fig.24 which was based in part on the
LP76 flooring?
`shy does the DEIR fail to discuss the environmental imoacts
associated with sold-mining, gypsum mining, and sand and gravel
operations which were all discussed in the GP-C/OSE and appendices?
How `sill these resources be impacted by increased growth and how
738 will their extraction affect the nearby communities (where such
communities exist), and how will expanded sand and oravel
operations impact the environment, including sensitive biological
resotjrces? ~ha~ will be the anticipated impacts of expansion of
gold mining operations discussed in the OP? How will expander
DEIR, Imperial County Oeneral Plan
PAGE 238 Show Image
738~ning operations impact groundwater resources and biological
resources?
F ~hy does the DEIR fail to discuss the potential impacts of
3~panded nining operations on groundwater quality and on surface
eater (1uality? These issues were raised in GP-C/OSE (p.~-2) so
Lhere is no excuse for failing to address them in the DEIR
~LOOD CONTROL/HYDROLOGY
~Jhy i~n1t there any reference to the GP-'~E in the E.~ for Flood
7401 c~ntro~l .:~nd hydrology? It the DEIR fails to reference that element
LhY ~ it prepared?
741w. `shy is there no mapping of drainage patterns or watersheds f or
o~j ndL~.:i t;e r bas ~
C. Gr~undw?ter
There ~ fr3.gments of discussion about groundwater in the
Ocotil~o ba ~n :.~lthc,.UQ~h invari;~bly relying `Dn (~ut-da~ed
nfOr~~:~t. on
~hy dcc the DEIP ~it to provi-le ~ny discussion .~bout the
~-rDundL~.;~r~ b i~in that 3u~Qk jes the well L~a tar the C~!',~fl -upplies C
.he S~l ron i ~ ~ 3rea ~nd Hot; ~iner.~l S~?A and FJornbay Beach? *~kJ
742 b~c..iuse 1~ ~round~~tCi L~ imported ?:r.Osn *jell.3 Ln P~iver~ide Counry
is no r~ascn not to pr-~vide information about that .~8sou -cc -
~h.:3t ~s the potential ror *3ubsidence where groundwater LS u5e'~
0 r ~ome? t 1 C ag r Lcu 1 tu ra I 0 r i ndus t r i~ I pu poses in g rou ndwa ~e r
..~e~endenr areas -35 growth reaches build-out under the proposed
t~~neraI *cl~n?. ~hy doesn't the DEIR discuss -he potential for los-
o~ 3tor.3ge ~ ;y related to groundwarer ~i i;hdrawal an(d.
subsidence'?
d. Floodin(~
ows a l.3rge area o~ flooding from Davies Valley into Nomirage.
743\¼ DEIR text (111-222) does not match the Fig. 24 map which also
e - l97~ General Plan
D~IR discussion of the contents of the eater Flement contains
reference to 3pecific performance requirements ~or various elements
744 which relate to water issues. These could not be found. In fact,
often it seemed that the water element had less useful information
and policies related to groundwater issues than did other elements.
F2. Environmental Impacts
Implementation of the proposed General Plan could also result
n increased ORV activity on disturbed surfaces and consequently
~im~act infiltration and rates of recharge.
DC- 19 1m~erial County General Plan I
PAGE 239 Show Image
r
Full implementation could undoubtedly result in ~round~ater
degradation and L~ell interference due to increased total pumpa~e
oncentrated on private lands, especially in the Ocotillo-Coycte
~ 0~ells basin Unless indusrial pumpa~e ceases increased
groundwater usage could also likely result in loss of storage
o.~paci by
i tigation Measures
bTM. P~ rou nd~~a be r
The eater element is inadequate as it pertains to groundL~ater
resources. It sails bo identify groundL~ater basins or groundwater
746 recharge areas including watersheds for basins of importance -or
existing uses in groundwater dependent communi ties ~ee discussion
of th~ General Plan eater ~lemen~ in the separate comments in
-esponse bo bhe Draft General Plan Update. ~hy are the ~P-C/CS~
policies more speciflo than those in the Y~ater ~lemenb ?
,~hat is intended by bhe discussion of the use of reclaImed
eater to ~benefit groundwater supplies~? To `.~hat areas does ti~I5
.~pply? Is lb -~ reference to treated eater from set~age breatment
~ i ties or to the use o~ grey-.~a tar systems? The DFIR
747 ~iscussion on the use of reclaImed ~a~er (III-~2~) seems
x napp rop r ia be in reference to the groundwa be r resou roes in Imperial
t~oun by unless more information 13 provIded . I b also seefns
Jnr? `t:~t~(.44 ho discussions and informa~xcn in the dr.3f b ~a tar ~lemen L
i~ioh is .~n abbreviated pert IOfl CT ;.~e oriein~l Terra Nova *~a a
~an pt~par~.d for the County in ~99l.
~`~hy are there no maps of ~roun~'~Jat;er basins or .~abershees to
he protected in either the draft General Plan UpdaDe in any
element or any~here In ;he D~I~ to indicate ~hioh portions of ha
C'c~unt;y are qround~ater dependent for domestic purposes? ~hy are
there no aps ~hioh Indica be there p0 table dual I ~y <~round~ater
748 r2souroes can be sound? There are portions of the county ~hioh do
nob overlie po table .~ual I by ground~a bar resou roes and also are rob
located in areas ~nioh are or can be served o'y Color~ct\o Iver .~a~er
supplied by an IrrigatIon dis~riot, at least not at the presenb
time. ~hy ar-en' t these areas identified and their- potential for
development discussed?
IV. GRO\4TH INDUCEMENT
Public Service Infrastructure
\4hy does the DEIR fail to discuss he increased demands on the
non-public service I nf ras Dructu re such as ground~a~e r resou roes
~hIoh represent a eater source supp~Ieo most often by I~dividual
domestic `sells rather than any `CU~~O
749 or prIvate ~a~er system?
Even afrer the inadequate discussIon of ground~aber resources -or
the Cootillo/Nomirage Community ;~rea¶ the preparers of the D~:R
*~hould have been aware bhaz ~ater resources for those ccmmuni~ies
Ps pot supplied by a public serice infrastructure as in ot~er
ar ~s of the County. onsequently -he aval lable resou roe may be
DEIR, Imperial County General Plan I~Q
PAGE 240 Show Image
L more vulnerable to the impacts of development under the proposed
land use plan in t;-c'rms of impacts on the e~isting conditions F
r~sult;ing from both increased pumpage and increased leachate from
individual septic systems overlying the resource.
that assurances are there that upgrading of e~isting roadways
not encourage leapfrogging of residential development?
HoLe sill infrastructure be affected by the jncreasing number
of seasonal residents~ particularly in outlying, groundwater-
~~ependen t areas as tourism seasonal rec rea tionists, and sno~bi rds
51 move to the area as ~nt;icipated under build-out conditions? i~hat
are t;he cumulative impacts of this population in addition to the
permaner;t population? Ho~ ~~Jill this impact the available
ground~at;er resources in out-lying parts of imperial and Riverside
Counties which are the source of supply?
B. establishment of NeLl Land Uses
The DEIR discussion of the growth inducing potential of ne~
l3nd uses mistakenly compares. only the impacts of the proposed land
ij5~ pL:3-n .3t build ouf:~ t;o t;he' Lmp.-30t5 resulting t:rom build-out; under
the ?`~xisttng plan `shy does the DEIP fail to consider the
52 ~ni;erpret;ations of the courts that; discussion of impacts of general
plan .~:.mendment;s or general pi.~-.n updates must consider the effects
t;h~ (j.roL~t;h jnduckng impacts or the plan in relation to the
ng phy~~..c;;.~l condo.. tions at the prr~~.ent time? (Rerny :4, ~
IL;~n.d2; ;d --onjiental ,:.~nd :nformation *~ouncil
.;-5Q, p54- 555.
The proposed plan may `neil be less groL~th inducing than the
unrealized and unrealistic ~97.s Plan, but; the proposed plan styli
represents a tremendous potential for growth inducement. This is
p..~rr;icularly true or aicas being designated as SP~5 and in areaz-
~53 ~ the preservation designation ~as deleted and changed to
RecreatIon/Open 5~ace which permits agriculture .~nd sets
dc.'v~tcpm6nt standards which open the door ror high density
in t;ens ive rec reation/ residential gro~~ t;h not; contempla ted under the
earlier preservation designation.
C. Development potential of Surrounding Land
fhe DEIR fails to adequately discuss the development; potential
and groi~~th inducing impacts .-3nd t;heir relationship to land use
planning impacts along the Riverside County line which could result
from development planned in the Hot Mineral Spa/Bombay reach area
754 and in the `4est Shores/Salton b~ty area. `could these proposed
areas of growth induce or inhibit growth in the Riverside County
areas? How `~ould growth of these groundwater dependent areas `which
import groundwater from Riverside County impact groundwater
dependent growth in Riverside County?
Socioeconomic
~hy doesn't the discussion of the potential socioeconomic and
DEIR, Imperial (ounty General Plan 1~l
PAGE 241 Show Image
development potenbial in ~1exico realistically deal pith very
serious infrastructure constraints in Mexico also'? \4here sill all
7551 the eater come from to support the additional 9ro~~th anticipated
and ho~/~here L~ill all the ~asbe `saber ~o? aren't bhese some
~~rious existing problems already?
~. c;ro~th ~ccommoda bion
~hy doesn' t the ~~IR acknoL~ledQDe bhat to a large part growth
756 planned and projected for areas such as S~ Imper~iai Oounby mere and
are unrealistic because the projected urban growth ~as planned on
public lands not on privabely owned lands¶ and bhus nob attainable?
ahab is ~he logic in asserting that deleting bhe preservation
desi(y~ation r~rom areas that include primarily r~upi *`~CJ~O5 and
changing that designation bo Recreation/Open space which permits
757 uses incompatible ~,~jibh adopbed 3LM policies and adopted 3-Lie
management plans ~ouid provide bhe County greater land use
centre la In the generally envi ronmen ba 1 ly-censtral ned areas eu ta Idc~
bhe centr3l Imperial Valley' (D~IR, IV-~)?
\/ CUMUL~~TIV~ IM~~CTS
This supplements the discussion in the earlier documents :~n
r'~spense to the ~
sand ~56
The OF- IR Oumu 1 ~ tive Impacts ~ n t; roduc teen refe reno~~~s C~'-~~
Q~uidelines Zec. 1355 ~~hich I ~ erief definition for the term
C~jmu lab ive Tmpac ts ~he reas (;u idel i nes ~ec IS i~C con ~ai ns a more
758 detailed te'
PAGE 242 Show Image
8. ~gricult;ure
\4hy does the DEIR fail to acknoL~led~e that the vast majority
of existing Important Farmland which has not been developed in
imperial County is under federal ownership and not available for
~61 cultivation or development because of adopted federal policies'?
\4hy doesn't the cumulative impacts discussion include reference to
limibations on bhe ,3vailabL.liby of ?vailable eater resources ror
t;he development of agricul bure?
C- Traffic/Circulation
~hy is ib that the D~IR repeatedly states that the County has
no jurisdiction over state highways, but is un~Jilling to
~cknoL£Jledqe the same limitation of County jurisdiction over public
`.~~nds ~naged by ELM, over State or indian lands, 311 of which
make up the majority of 1-and within the County?
0. Noise
~hy doesn t the DEER provide any discussion of the cumulative
noise impacts for the proposed regional land fills one of which is
783 proposed to be lorcated adjacent to the e.~isting Gold Fields mine?
To f~i1 to include this discussion is to ignore the re(~uirements of
c.~~(; Guidelines Sec 15 ~
~- 8iological ~esource.3
0~IR disr'uss~on of the C~jmula.tive effects on biological 1;-~
ouper ~c~al ~nd ignoes the fs-ct thar rhe i,m~iementarion ~easure'.3
¾~iscussed have extremely 1 imi ted or no proven success n desert;
environments (3Lt~ meeting (1978) p. ~ includinc~ locations
~i thin ¶.m~e r ia 1 (;ou n by ~he re such .~Tieasu res have been a ~ tempted
(B~Li~ (1990) ~THL mgmt p.11.) Of special concern is Burl's
discussion ~bou t the effectiveness of mi tigat~on measures as
rel.~ted to Imperial County. In 1990 8L~ stated that:
rlitigation measures, which are protect specific
modifications or other ac~~ons resigned to "educe an
adverse impact of .3 proposed project, vary greatly in
their effectiveness - Th".~ Bureau does not a1~ays have
764 adequate funding ci ther to moni ~or comQl iance `~i th
mitigating stipulations or to assess the effectiveness of
mitigation fneasures developed for land use oermits- even
pith mitigation, development within habitat of concern
usually results in a temoorary or permanent net loss of
habitat. (Burl (1990) p.11 -
Consequently the DEIR assume tion that cumulative mpacts on
biological resources can be mitigated ~z*o below a level of
significance' by the implementation of County goals, objectives,
and policies relative to the protection of biological resources
(DEIR, V-4) seems overly cQtimis~iO based on experiences in
Imperial County and concerns raised by Bui'l in its ~ianagement
strategy for the flat tailed hornea l~~ard, a category 1 species
for federal listing.
DEIR mperial County General elan 1
PAGE 243 Show Image
Public services/Safety
~hy does the DEIR Cumulative Impacts analysis fail to address
the availability of groundwater for the projected growth at build-
765 out under the proposed plan, particularly for areas such as
Ocotillo-Coyote Wells basin pith its knoL~n resource 0onstraints,
*3nd for the areas served by ~round~ater pumped f'om sells in
Riverside County'?
G Visual Resources
Why does the DEIR fail to discuss the most serious impacts on
the `~visual resourceS of the County namely the proposals to build
tL~o ne~ mountains of imported trash on the east side of the County
766 identified in DEIR 111-150 as the proposed regional landfills'? To
iqnor~ these identified proposed projects, is to ignore the CEm~~
guidelines mandated consideration o~ reasonably ~nticipated futur\'-~
projects" (Guidelines Sec. ~5i'0).
IV EL~.'ECTS ~OUND NOT TO BE S1GNI~TC~NT
Why didn't the DEIR address all the concerns of the Planning
~ of Riverside County?
~ITi. PELHATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOC~L SHORT TERtI USES OF 1~N `5
VIRONtIENT £~ND Ei~~H~NCE1~ENT OF LONG- TERtI PRODUCT17~T'~
FTh~ ;mN~acts
Po~~-~ing Long-Term Ri~,L\'~ to Public `~ealth
The i~E:'R :~~~cusa~on ~ r.~his r~ection `~eeifl'a ~~,,flru'3:,n:~ . gosh
r. hat 3 ro. ~ rou nd~(:'~ te r' de~~noen t ~nd have ] nd iv dual reo I
768 y3 tern have absolutely no rel~.tionshiq to ~he depen~e ncy on ra,~
.;inat ~aher 15 ~uq-gest.ed on LTh-EIR.' ~~`II-l. The DEIR fails to e'~pl~in
ho~ "adoption and implementation O~ the Plan Update could reduco
~he deo~endency on raL~ canal gaZer ;3nd septic ~ ystems" (C)EIR, VII. I
in Areas al re;~dy `-omote 3nd relying on such systems
VIII. SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONME>T~L C.H~NGE5
he DEIR fail to include impacts to 05511 (~round~c-,ter
769i resources `~x ~h I imi ted recharge there usage al ready e\~.~0CCd5
~chai.~~e -
CERTIFICATION ~ND INDEPENDENT JUDGEPIENT OF' LEAD ~GENC'(
Before using a draft [EIR] prepared by another person,
the Lead ~gency shall subJect the draft to its oLin
agency's rev1eE.~ and analysis. The draft EIR `which is
sent ou~ for public rev1e'.~ muse reflect the indeoendent
770 judgement of the Lead ~gency. (Pub. Resources Code, sec.
21082.1 (ce; CEQ~ Guidelines Sec. 15084(e))
Why ~as this Lead agency Certification ignored prior to the
~istribution of the DEIR'? Ho~ and `.~hy ~as the County's ou~si~e
consultant authorized to substitute his "independent judgement"
~p. DEIR /1-I for that of the Lead agency?
DEIR, Imperial County General Plan I ~
PAGE 244 Show Image
CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, the Conservation Committee urges the
County to authorize the preparation of a revised (supplemental or
subsequent) draft EIR (SDEIR) as per C~Q~ Guidelines Sec. l516~,
71 which includes the recommendations in this response, particularly
I .~ugges~ions for a ne~J alternative based on environmental
constraints. The DEIR is inadequate to meet the specificity
required for ~ Program EIR for a General Plan for a County the size
and diversii:y of Imperial County. Specific comments on the General
plan Update sill be submitted separately. VJe appreciate this
opportunity to comment on the DEIR for the General Plan Update.
f
DEIR ~m~erial County C~eneral Plan 1~5
PAGE 245 Show Image
<7%
½¼/ ½
iflA ¼7½'¾
PAGE 246 Show Image
AMENDMENT TWO
MULTIPLE USE CLASS (MUC) GUIDELINES - AGRICULTURE
Proposed Amendment
Change the MUC Guidelines to prohibit agricultural uses (excluding liveStocK
grazing) in MUC M and I. Permit agricultural uses to continue in unclassified
lands.
Other Alternatives Considered
No Action
Decision
Accept Proposed Amendment
Rationale
Currently, agricultural uses (other than livestock grazing) are not permitted
in Multuple Use Classes C and L. This amendment would extei~d this policy to
Classes fri and I.
The basic intent of all multiple use classifications for public lands is to
signify the basic values of these lands. The Federal Land Policy and
Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA~ sets forth the principle that public lands are
to be retained in public ownership and managed for the public good. The Act
did, however, retain certain land disposal policies, including desert land
entry.
Historically, the development of public lands for agricultural uses has been
controlled by the Classification and Multiple Use Act (C & MU) classifications.
The C & MU prohibits, or segregates, most of the federal land in the COCA from
acquisition through Desert Land Entry (DLE) for agriculture The intent of
this amendment is to bring the Multiple Use Class Guidelines of the Desert
Plan into agreement with this historical principle.
The Desert Plan, in its zoning syst~, intended. that retention lands which
were in multiple use classes would be maintained in essential wildland
character. except as authorized under specific lease, Der~iit or grant.
Aqricultural use is not generally one of those kinds of authorized uses.
Further, agricultural use contemplates disposal of the land from Federal owner
ship.
this amendment provides that agricultural entry will be allowed only on
unclassified land. If public land is found which may be potentially suitable
for agricultural develop~nt, the applicant must first apply for a plan
PAGE 247 Show Image
mendment to chance tne land to `~unclassified'3 before entry would be allowec
~r considered further. This would insure a consideration of both its agricul
tural potential as well as the public values associated with its retention in
its current undeveloped state
fm~lementation Needs
None
____________ 7
Dis~r~cz Ma~ayer ¼ Dare
-7-
PAGE 248 Show Image
"~, _ NEW BOUNDARY
*~ > I~b;~. ORIGINAL
BOUNDARY
(J
PAGE 249 Show Image
I
Ir"
~ * 3ENSITIV~
~ 9o~ 8~ubI Mont~r~ Har~ood Go~if~ Freshwate(/8a1t MarBh * HAfl~ATS
~LLLjUGCUII ~~ub * ~IIII~IIII1IIIII
8~nd Du~w * AIk~Ii (>C~§~t ~o~ub ~ Dc~ert ~~pn~I~n *
~~11 ~1t11H ~ ~ ____ DI~t~bc(1 (AQr~i~~ufelU(b5fl) ~ ~~ort Wash 0 6 l2mIIoa FL
11411UU~ PInYon-JunIp~( & ______
Imper~a~ Counts
PAGE 250 Show Image
0 8 12m~e'
II
½-Fm In~,~U~l Plant ~~somblages and
~u1ro
~ OPA Sons~t~VO P~ants8 Wildlife Areas
PAGE 251 Show Image
C}u£ckwalla Desert Thj~ise HMP - ~epa~~~ioi: G~id~
fflustratio~ I
MAP OF TifE PLAN~~~G AREA
COR?S AIR
GROUND COMRAT ~
¼\ JOSHUA j~F~ ~A~ONAL MONUME~~~
~
A
~
tTMA
A~!AT
w(OUN~M~~< ~ j ~OURC~
C
½
PAGE 252 Show Image
State analysis faults enforeement, monitoring pollution in Valley
By P.A. !?iee The report was based on a than $3O(),o()() In penalties, more businesses found to be in viol- ~½
St8tf W(It6~ March 1992 inspection made by than half of which will go to the atlons of regulations No monet-
the state. county's general fund. ary penalties were ever assessed.
Imperial County has not en- `Some of the - problems they The state found notices issued for &~
A state audit released Tuesday forced the California Clean Air (Imperial County) share with air violation of agricultural burning ~
criticizes tl~e county Air Pol- Act, the report states. The county pollution control districts that statutes that were later voided
lution Control District for lax exceeds state standards for both have short staff," said state air for no apparent reason.
enforcement1 testing, inspecting smog and small particulates. board spokesman Bill Sessa in
and monitoring of air pollution While some air polltition comes Sacramento. But, he said, "The * Inspections and work in the
sources in Imperial County. from Los Angeles and Mexicali, program hasn't been the high district were not reviewed to
The state Air Resources Board state air board officials maintain priority in the county It should make sure they were done prop-
also chides the county for falling a significant amount of air pol- have been." erly.
to adequately staff the district. lution is generated within the Imperial County's short- * There were no inspection
"The report of that audit, to
say the least, was not very kind county. comings cited in the I-inch-thick guidelines for the district, and
to the district," Air Pollution Of th~ 13 plants and businesses report include the air district staff did not
Control District Officer Stephen lnspect~d ii~ the audit, most were * Failure to conduct required conduct "thorough and com-
flirdsall told the Board of Super- found to have violated air quality annual tests of sources of air plete" Inspections of facilities
visors Tuesday. "Basically, what rules. Only five were found to pollutants, such as factories, to under its jurisdiction.
the ARB said is `You have a meet state standards. Five had see If they were complying witl~ * While the majority of com-
major problem In your dis- major violations. air quality regulations. plaints from citizens received
trict.' " The violations yielded more * Notices were not isstied to See POLLUTION, A6
~ --~ ~
C,) ~
~ C: ~CO~ ~ _
CI). ~
~ -d
`~ --. - -
~ 0
-.~ C: __
~ 0 Y) ~ `~ -I
0 V 0
~
0 ~ CI)' ,~ ~ 0 ___
0
C:
0 0 ~ C:~ ~ ~(0' ~ ~ 0
~i 0
0 ~ ~ ~ ~ -S
C: 0 ~ 0'< ~ -~
0 -
CrC:CI) ~ 0 0~ ~
CI) . . I -. ~ 0 .
PAGE 253 Show Image
(0~ ~ .~ ~ `A ~ 0 ~ ~
IAo ~ ~ IA 4'. IA IA ()~O -1 U)
~ _ IA(t~ ~ w ~ __ __
~ ~ ~ - c)~ ~0 (-) 0 ~ cb y A
0 IA t* - ~ 2 ~ 0 IA IA~ ~ ~ IA~ ~ ~ IA ~ IA ~ 0IA~~ ~
0 CD 0 ~ IA ~ blIh CD ~ ~0~CDIA~
ci ~ .. ~CD0< CD CD ___
OCD ~ 0~ ~ IA IA __
IA~ 2 CD 0 CD ~ IA ~ ~ CD CD <
N 0 ~ IA ~ CD 0 - 2
0 ~ ~ CD ~ CDIA ~ 1 ~ ~ 2. n 0 0 ~
IA CDIA ~ ~ ~ ~ -~
0 N 0 ~
OIACD g ~~CD~o~IAIAL. ~ 0~C~0~();~ ~ __
C,)
IA ~ IA 0 IA
IAIACD ;\ 0~ ~
0 LY CD CD ~ ~ ~ IA 0 ~ CD
~ ~ ~ CD~ ~ CD~ ~ ~ CD IA ~ CD -~ ~ CD CD ~ ¼ j)
LA
Co1~tfil)LItj()I~ to l~)(;i'l cI~'IssI()I)s Is II~sta~IeLl Ii~ tl~c coLitity's Cal~xico
Ozone 1) d~ ~ ~ l1;i~~~df~iflIgI WaI1;i(lb~ ~
(Coiiiliiu~d f~()fll PagL across tILL' 1)()Fd(~r ) Agricultural bUrning coil-
tivities. wIle be reqLiire(l to ~ county £`~Ii(l st~'~te ~iir ages- tributes up to 21 percent of all the
i~~e coiiiity to force cx- ~ have set ~i~i rii(~Iiitori~g chemicals leading to smog iii
develoli regniatious
isting lildustries In the coLinty to Stiiti()fl5 to &leter~i~Iiie liO~V nuicli IlnIlerial (~oiiiity, ~`iccordiiig to the
redLice air elnIsslons. iliere ~`ire air polliitloii ci-osses the luter- coLinty~s air pollution control
cLirrently 24 facilIties with a total, natbual burLier, sai~l county jllan. `1'lie plaii calls for further
of 47 different en~issIon sources,' l)eputy Air Pollutioii (~ontroI stu(ly of lio~v to redLice en~issions
such as boilers, that would li~iVC Officer &iasI)ar ~~orres. froni a~riciiltural burulug.
tO be fitted wIth l~ollLitIon coiiti'ol `1'1i~ coLinty's plaii t~irgets 12 `l'lie iiext step foi' the coiiiity is
eqIii~)[fleiit. tyl)es of bushiesses fof air 11(11- tO beghi writing the regulations
State air board officials said ILitloll control iileasLLres, IncluLl- to control specific indListries. `flie
air jiolILItioLi froiii IViexicali could lug coi~iiiiercI~~l j)rilitiiig O[)Ci~- regLila LIons are exj)ecte(l to go
be an overwliel[1ling factor in £`itl(i[is, Liry cleaiiers, atitoiiiotiile
Luto effect between 1993 aud I99~.
violations of ozone standards iii refliushiug sliojis, jietroleiiiii
li4iperial Conuty. stolage, gas loaLlilig ol)ei~atioiis, `l'lie air boarLI ~ediiesday also
flut, Sessa, said, ``Uiitimately, dc-greasing busiiiesses aud approved the I(ern County air
the greatest coucern is what the asj)lialt roofers. jilaii, aliLl S£'iii IAei'iiardin() Couii-
people Ill Imperial County are Iii a(l(liti()il, a g~'is (`.olle('.ti()li ty's jil~'iii I'e(:eived con(litiolial
breathing ~`ind so reduciug the systeili wIll tie i'e(iLiIre(l to be ajij)rov~'il
PAGE 254 Show Image
idagrees to fun Co nty Ia updat
(Continued from Page 1) `Certainly whether it is legal or
~, rice not constitute a conflict of interest, not, I have no idea," said acting
despite the fact Arid has applied for executive Director Ruth Holton.
a conditional use permit for the dump whether it is ethical or not. whether ci'
~ company that has and the plan can influence where there is an appearance of a con"lict
for a county permit to landfills are built. of interest, I would say. No ques-
tonal ~ndfilI has The ~l Centr~based Arid. Western tion.'
to give the county as Waste Industries of Gardena and S.?. Holton said when it comes time to
~ ~.OOO to pay for an ~nviro~ental Systems of Golden, mare a decision, "The supervisors
to *~ county's general Cob.. are partners in the project to are going to be aware from tius. one
build a huge landfill in the desert developer that they received the
I ~ indicated it would near the Algodones Sand Dunes that money to go ahead and change the
~ more money if the would take in as much as 20,000 tons general plan. It is hard to ~ag'irie
ieeds it. a day of trash from Southern Cali- that they are going to treat this
~d Operations Inc. of- fornia cities and counties. developer in the same way they are
id if the county d~ not Fries said the money from Arid is going to treat any other developer. It
he ,talain soon, it will delay in anticipation of a schedule of fees is certainly an implied obligation. It
p p~ject, and the county being developed by county staff may not be illegal, but it rais'es lots
ther the staff *nor the members that will charge larg~scale of serious questions."
~ get the plan done. - Holton said developers have a
"very strong vested interest" in the
e simply. the county developers for updating and main- outcome to the general plan.
update that general plan. taming the general plan. The sched- -~ I
~a50r projects. we have ule is expected to be prepared by "You don't give $50,000 and exit --`-` I
with the plan," Dec.31. a Degative outcome from that gift,"
d oral Manager Ro~ Fries said under California en- Holton said.
~ was appointed to vironmental laws, a county must Holton said it would apoear, to be
Izi~5 general plan ad- have a general plan to cover all less of a cont'llct if the ~~ty
"If it spects of development, including received the money from a variety of
:amrnittee J~ily 31. ~a0L[S~g, land use and industry. The sources as they are pl~niiing to do
~~ed according to state county's general plan. Fries said, has with a fee schedule for larg~cale
~p t~e!l Our,, project is not not been updated for at least 18 years developers.
be valid. approved and portio{is of it may be out~fAate "It is this c'~'--'ent one where they
and ixiadequate. If the county a~ are getting ail this u~frooit money
sent is proved a permit under the general from this one developer," Holton
[ty Board of supe~rs plan. Fries said. it might be success- said.
~ Aid' will `uiitily ad- fully c~llenged in the courts.
~ o~mity $50,000 to U~ in fact. the county is being sued by An attorney with the state At-
~ plan. The ap- the Ocotillo Cor'i~ unity Council and torney G~eral's office, who ~ed to
t~ ~ is on the the Sie~a Club Legal Dejenne F"md ~ anonymous, said co~'ct of
~t age. ~ for permitting two new agricultural interest ~es usually arise because
be approved with other water weil~ in Ocodilo. The suit a govern~"nent of" iai benefits per'
__ -~ alleges the county's decision was sonaily from thE aioney. He sa}d he
w~t~xit' discussi(}0 ~ ___________________ - wot~d riot comment specif"~cally on
~ at the meeting ass. - -________________________
based on a general plan that is the case of Arid and the co(mty.
incoosistent with its zoning ordi- Filler said he does not tilink an
~ai plan is a document nances. County attorneys have de- advance to the county constitntes a
alit how the county nied the plan is inadequate. confiic~
to develop its ~e$oIlrCeS A successful challenge in the "It is Like another permit that has
e ~ ~ courts would mean developers wore- to be taken care of so that our project
m'~~~agreedto ingon projects would have toappiy can be consistent with an ixpdated
~ ~ money for the for permits all over again.
~ ~*ct ji it is needed. In denying a conflict of. interest, plan," Filler said.
anty bas tiired a San. Diego Fries said developers should be The other side of it, he sail', "is
- _______ .- .. charged for amendments and updates that the county doesn't have any
any to prepare:t~e amend- to the plan because it is in their money." in order for his' prolect to
to tbe gener~i piano inst- go througt~ as quic~y as ~
)~~~OIi in ~ ~~m~nt Fries said the county and residents Filler said, the general piaz~ Deed~ to
L~ th~ c~ wid'' be a~o ~~fit because general fuzid or be updated soon.
~ for paying ~ other revenues would riot have to be
all ~ $~.O~) in advances used. The county, wm'ch had an . s'MPER!AL COUNTY
estimated $6.~rnillion shortfall early
~ later be ~otirited as thisyear.cannotirnrnediatelyafford SUPEHVISORS
~ fee~~ the expel of ~pdati'iig the plan. OIstn'ct 1: Wayne Van Ce
tnty C~l Thomas Fries Fries said. Graaff - 329~4~O9 or 357-3030
~ payments frorn Arid do However. an official with Call- Distn'ct 2: Bil! Cole - 339~21 0
~ PLAN, P~e A6~: fornia Common Cause. a government or 353-1~11
II
watchdog group in Sacramento, said Oi~n~ 3: James Buct\er -
there is at least an appearance of 339-430w or 355-1864
Cisiflc+Ij Abe Seabolt -
PAGE 255 Show Image
-b~~sod firin ** lip for * U. "It's not tliat we're going to
Jirgini~ piekiPg tab ti'ip to site ~ ~ ~
?)/ Robert C. Johnston to see how it's been," Cole said of so~itliern regional corporate develop- . a company other than Cliaml}eus'
all WrIlef -~ -~ Cli~iiiibers i)evelopineiit's . Charles nicut director for the coli)pany, Bald I want them to evaluate Chamb~~rs;'{
____________ ___ ____ City, Va., dunip, which has been the trip's itlnerai~ is not complete he said.
picked for the visit. and said lie could not estimate how Sharp said his group includes'
A group of local leade[s Is scIic(1- Said Si~arp, "~iy first question is much the trip would cost the com-~~ Brawley City'. Councilwoi~ai~~, Stelia''
l~d to ~ke aii all-expenses-paid trip golug to be - What's the worst thing pany. ... ` ~ ` Mendoia and Fred KIcka owner of
a Virginia laudi ill, co~irtcsy of the tha l's ever liappened?'8 lie said Cole and Sii~rp were asked 1)osert Benefits Inc in ~rawley
ile's owner, a f)eiiiisylvaiiia.base(1 Chambers' officials revealed In to Invite a cross section of communl- `~Both have confirmed they will go
hill propo.~ing a similar operation in F'ehruary they hope' to build, a 5,000- ty leaders to go along on the trip. Kileka is on the fr)ard of dit~ctdr% of
he liiiperi~-il Valley. * . acre regIonal landfill' 12 nilles east of Chambers' local consultarit flioliard the Brawley Economic l)evelopni~nt
l~oard Of Supervisors Chairman Callpatria at the toot of the Clioc6late l{aii~lrez also helped select the Comi~l5slon.
liii Coleaud Supervisor Sain'Sliarp Mountains. group. . Included on Cole U invitation list
~ilI be among those on the June 11-14 An estimated 20,()00 tons of trash Spires, a county supervisor In were El Centro, City Councilnian
ill, to be paid for by Chai~iiiers each day c9uld l}e transported by rail Lexlngtoii County, S.C., saId landfill hank Kulper and El Centro Chamber
)evelopi~eiit Co. inc. of l)ittstjurgli, to the site. oppoiients were ei~couraged to join of Conimerce president Gene
``1 `iii just goiiig lo visit local peolile i~owell C. `` Butch'' Shires, the trip. See T~IP,A6
But solile are concerned about the
[`rip
Influence Clianibers' all-expense- lie said Chambers has only recent-
paid trIp might have on the local ly expande(l to the West and has had
~Cofltl[1ued trom ~)age 1) leaders. oi)erations in California for less than
l~1~ister . Kulper Is slated to i1i~kL' the ``I agrce (leclsioiiiii;ikers uiioii iii two yea rs.
ti il)~ altliou gli l~i.ister til mcd it dowli be well-ijiforined,'' bald Bra wicy Cole said lie would like to move
t)ccausC of a 1)1 br ci1iiiiiiitiflciit. l'liiyoi- f~~()riiia Salk liiiii . ` ` i~ut thIs is (~`iickly 01) the proi)()8ed laudi ill as
l~iiiiiIrei said as of t&slay the quite aii exl)enslve gesture ... (IC- well a's a secoud landfill proposed by
f0iiowiiig l)COi)lC "41.1 L' Coillil ilcil lur cisioii-giiakers sli()til(i l)rocee(l with Arid operations on Gold Fields
caul lou when gifts are IIivolve(l . ~1liiiiig Co.'s Mes(Jiiite MIuc site near
tli~ till):
Antoi~i0 i'li.'ido , (;uicxic() city cuoli Shall) aud Cole sai(i (;liaiiibers will (~ iain~s.
~11~lke aiiil Betty iii'ike tr~'~iisi~)rlii tIiiii av~iiliibl&.' to tli('.
ciliii'iii ,Jiiliii (~`ity (;u~iiicil group so they can travel oil their owli aii'' ~iit I wii it to iiiiike sure we luive
Sanip5011~ Calipatria opportunity to check It out I
members; [(Odger I~ciiiiCtt ~3i~awley to luterview local resldeuts aud want to be sure it is all done
city n~anagcr; feat l)ockstader
icailers. carefully," lie said.
Ca~lpatria busiiiessiilaii; Jerry Saylig lie would he more. coii- Stipervisors have sclieduled.ineet-
(,`auna, county plailililig coin- cerned about the ap~}earance of ings with Chambers and Arid of-
missioner; Jay Jeltcoat, an attorney
conflicting interests if lie
working out ol f£l Ceutro aud San SI' ,,, were aloi)e, ficials at 4 p.ni. today and 0 a.ni.
* I)aiiiel 0. BoljiiisoO, a Calex- i~irp added, .fliese peoi)ie woulil Friday iii the County Adininlstratioii
t)iego; ii~aii * All oii ` coiiie ii.~ looking it Building In El (caIro.
`ico business Scott iiot iii without
Calipatria 11u')iic w()i 5 di rect~ii' aid a site.'' 1)0
Pat Brown of I i()lt\'iile who is a Shires said the Cli~ii.les City sIte
covers 1,000 tolal acres, al though
iiieiiiber iii the l iii1)c i~ial (`.oiiiity ouly 2'1J9 ai.'i es 1101(1 i~ii sli . ~.`liaii ii)('.i 5
Ilistorical 5ociety. has sites iii 11) sl,ates lii various areas
* ``1 hope i)eoi)le ~CC wli,'it we (10 is
coi('patible anil palatailie,'' Spires of the couiitiy, aliliougli most of its
said of the liii). ``I thiuk it's oi)(.'r'iti()ns a i'e loca t('.(l in the South,
PAGE 256 Show Image
Gold Fields will support
waste-by-rail plan at mine
P. A. Rice Fields Mining Co. general manager. rado have a long way to go before any
Siati Writer `EWe were hoping to have a contract waste is moved. The mega~ump
before we made that decision. would require approval by local.
Filler said Saturday the decision to state and federal regulatory agen-
An official of Gold Fields Mining make a public announcement was cies.
Co. announced Friday his company spurred by a newspaper story dis- Our challenge is not only to go
has decided to join waste and closing the project. through the permitting process and
railr~d officials in proposing a Filler said the three companies construction and operation. but also
wast~by-rail system that would will present their proposal to the to present the full program including
carry ~ tons of garbage a day Board of Supervisors Dec. 3. He said the benefits to the county. as well as
the rest of it. so they (regulatory
from Southern California to the gold he expects the project with r~uire a
mine near Glamis. 21 sear envIronmental review. agencies) can make an informed
decision on what is going to happen.~
We made the decision Friday we But Gold Fields. Western Waste Filler said Saturday.
would go ahead with development of Industries of Gardena and SP ~n- Two other mega-dumps in
the proj~t.~ said Robert Filler. Gold vironmental Systems. inc. of Cole Southern California have generated
considerable controversy. One pr~ tracks owned by the Southern Pacific ated daily. imperial County produces
ect near Amboy in Riverside County railroad. A sour track would be built 340 tons of trash a day.
.5 now undergoing an environmental from the raii line at G~mis to Gold Filler said the landfill will be on
review. Another is being built at Fields. private property o~med by Gold
Za~gle Mountain in San Bernardino Initial plans call for one train-load Fields. not on former federal land the
County. of 4.000 tons of trash a day to be company purchased.
The imperial County proposal is brought to a l6(~~acre site west of The proposal calls for the mine to
being developed under an agreement present mining operations. ~ventu- be in operation for 50 vears ~nd take
signed by officials of the mine, the ally, Filler said, the landfill would in 250 to 400 million tons of trash.
Gardena waste firm and a sister expand to cover 1.300 acres with a Filler said. It would rise up to 330
company to Southern Facific Trans- total garbage load of five trains a day feet above he desert floor when
,~rtation Co. carrying 20,000 tons of trash. filled. he added.
The trains would bring trash from The landfill. Filler said would use
The proposal calls for waste to be Los Angeles. San Bernardino. River- rock and gravel generated by mining
brought to the Gold Fields mine near side. Orange. Ventura and San Diego operations to cover waste taken to
Glamis. 35 miles east of Brawley. on counties, where 75.000 tons is gener- the site each day.
I ~
(
PAGE 257 Show Image
¶m~~~h~i Court~/ ~1~flfllL~9 `~~3~tmefl;
9 M~Ln ~t~6r
__ C~ ~2ffi'4J
~ rl
-` ;,;C-#C-rCnC~:~ 1~~£~l C in omm
ccmm~~ F. Cfl ~ g-0 ~ n FLy ~ ~ L `P ~r ~
F 7.. 1 --- ~~F' ~
I -~ - ,.. 7
~?~3 LOfl Cr COmments the i.-e'~-C i~eflCC-. :)~ ~Cfl jOC.7~ F~
. `ID.. F:-?.
.1~I I :1 I~i C.-.'-. ¼ u ID C n $.-. F-. F. -~ U !11 ¼.' 0$ C.:? C~ . `F' - ID
`.F Al F-' 0T~ il f: C ID--.' F C.. .*F `. .:.-. F
-~ .-- -- *.--::. -~ 1 -~ `~II 7. - -
C .1 `-.. .*. - ,* -. - -,
½-.~0(ID?-.
,-I---F$-.:I-, *1.0qI~CID':'1 r;0.C.
½~~r½$~ ½¼¼~~)
1 - ~ $-. m C P 3/~ ~/~3
F
- `¼ .~
* k~/--*i -- .~--.-. - ,-- UC *`~.~C$~L `&-C~0--P~--F ;--t~
-~ `4 -.~
~Ak 2 3 ~
iMP£RIAL COU~T~
PAGE 258 Show Image
CIT. ~D
.~RCO Sc1~r T~inin~ ~eo,~r-m~n~. ~
~ ~o1umes fo~ z'he ~ r~or (.3if~irq S~miiai -
..31if~rfl1~
LB~~~OU~ ~ :~r~d `~ H ~ ~ ~ of ~m~,r;cc~. ~ .½1
Konrucy ~~9S3 - ~ `K~nbucky
j , h ~. Cou~zn~Y I~8~ ~q~jo'j1t'Ji.? ~ . onmer~:
. . . -. . .~.
io~I G.2-oc~--.~~nv c,~ ~ ~`j~L ?~y~t.'~rn?. Ln~rn~n
h~ O,.hy~
no. . Lonci on.
~?~Y 0. L&~ncL ~ huo'.~-'.~:~< ~ Th:.'C-- 0: ~~O' CO-
p1, ~n m r~3s~ m.~o; . P-.? ni `SO nnc.~ ~ou t:.h .. ~ .
~ ,~t'~O.'5
~u r~3-:~u Of L~n~ M.~n~~~rn8n ~- 1 p92. ~ - Sp½.9o½:.¼I.~.:'
~ `.-~``~ I'~''''''~~'' __ ___ ______
.~c½-.O.C-~ U ~. I 1433
.-`~ .u 0 L ~nc~ r1s~n,-~m~n ~O ~ I;n.. 7c,I,Ifl$f . II ~ "A.'.? `I. "n:.C~
I-' .~ ~ d I'A~n,:-....',..:.~.'i',½~n ~ .~}. ~on 00...::. Th..6~0-I~ ~I.CO-C-C-
I'~'~ "AU ..` .. :~nd 1,13, ½-'. `~ ~. I . - . . n 0.0 ¼~ C' n Y'. ` , ,;:, 0- .0?
~~":?~K Iis~ns~crn~~nD' pks~n.
C-q8m~n~
¶:~U I~~0-U O'~ Lend M~n$-.a6m~n; - L~S6. Chuok~ LI lo ~non ~
~ of L~0'~ ~3nC~n..,$rn'?n.. . L0.~4. ½Uh~ D~o-.?.r ~ `1o.,n&-oo--m~nt' `,`?` ion.
~ o'r: Lonof' M.,o..n~-~C-m ~n . - L.~W'c-- C.hu'I L o- ~C~C ~C~nC-o~-0-manl;
Plc-n
~ of L~3nd `,~,-onsc~m~nt -1~s'~ ~ I~8S~ `~i'l-dl'f~ H~oi'~~~
.`~CnC.-9~rnen~ 0'l~n
~ of ~no' I'4,$na,~$m~n; - l~~l ½Uh? ~ ~ ~~n0.-0~rn~n :`~l3n
000
~ -Of L'FI~ c-no ~ ,ol.~n Loo~~3'
PAGE 259 Show Image
Bu ~ OT Ls~rd ~ ~ ~ ~S.S ~ - ~9o. ~1~n
(~rn8ndmen~s 3n~ oor~~spondInq ~eoo~d~ of ~ on.
~ of Land ~1(~n~qement. ~ ~ C~1~for.~ia The~~~t Cons~Q7~:'.on
~ ~J>~qk?SO. u.~* Dept. OT oh~ nt~~ior, ~ 0
~1.3n~o8men Qt~S~ ~ I :~ Ii~ i~ id~ Cs ~
4
~u ~$.u OT Ls~nd ~~anao~rn~n ~ F;.~oc . -. c-.~; .o `2$ . 0
D~se~~ Con~~~\/a~'Lon ~ ~d'~iL~o~v Cornm~ `i;~~~ :-Th ~1z~Z~ ~ C A - No ~. ~
0 ho. ~ U~?-~.'J 0
- Dec. ~ Deli;.
4,~nacernent.
`:oi~ni.?. Codo- .. -. :jo~L-,~n-
`J ~ ~
L~CD. 2~
rn C' .5 .. `-
~0~~hfiL t.-~ . L?-£3~ . .~e onoi~$-.n ~ -
&?nd C.
H .:\nd.oook on h~ ~sa~-.;:. $f No /, ,3:$nTo~O L;-.~ C0?O0: . Stanfo~, C.~.
~eer~1;IQ~ on Chuck~aL~s~ ,`;CS~?~ ~ ½'$~0t 5;.. >1,,':-,n$.-.o.~rnenr ,zL~n ~<`Jms-
W~~hsona
H.3rnrne~, - . K . .Th . t.1~cK:0,.~$n. L~~3L - HY~~~0L½?C..L' ;..nd ?~q;.~~L i~ PT -
~esou ~ John .`~i Icy &. 5cm'. :\4e.'~ Yor½ -
Harmon. ~. . ~ ,-`\,na1I~~ of ~¼SC5 mon .0.-hnc da;~o- TO'. ~ `n
COo~2IIo-CovoDc `AJCLI~ C-ro~.o'.~'.---tcr ~a~in.
Harmon. ~ *?c~ca oh.
?.o-fcrcnc~o-. for D~i~ *?n(5 L&'.~'.~L ,OL ;.`n )oca ~
PAGE 260 Show Image
HufltIC~/, D 1q92, 19~~ Ccmmunio3tion `~it;h H~~mofl
¶m~e~i~l County 9~~nn ifl~ D.e,oa~tmen~ 1~92 ~GCfld~ fC~ ch~ ¶mpe~i~'
County ~d-Hoc ~dvi~o~y Oommi~~8e fo~ the 1/2-/1~~2 rneetin~ ~(~efl~&~
-tern ~. *~~e\,1eL~ of ~-s~ft HOUSIflO
¶ m~e L ~ 1 ;ou fl ty ~. l ~nn j ~q ~ tmen f;. b ~Q 1 P' ~f t H ou ~ 1 flo- `.`~ ~ I
1-3 fin i flO ~CO$-- r- t;m(.-2 S ~ SO ~3 ~ 0 Ct I I fl?~ 1 k t D ,.~ h ~ ~ 1
rnpe--I~1 County ~13nnI no DeQ~-tmenb - 1~ 99.0' ":`¾'mendCd Overvie'~:
¶rn~e~I;-1 County Q~~net.~i ~1~n , .~pp~ov~d `oy ~o~-d of ¶u~e
`~I t~hou -`. m~P5 or b~.ble'B
rn'o~ t- ~~`:-- 1 Poti sty 51 ~ n n I ~ D~'~~:~-3 r t;~is: n b - .`~ ~~C' H' ou -IS.': `?--rn-:. S ~ ;.`:~oo ~
~v Sos-r:£1~ of Cu~er\j'1~OiZ ~Q/2,~/~O , Sot-- 7.3 ~ 5' Y
5:1 :1~~(1 Cornm'.~n I tv .?`e\;~ .OSm~:S t~
t- I I ¶ I's-c-- ~ LOS ~ `. `C 1( 0 :~ --of `1.::' CT: U-ho I F 0 I~
/1990 I¶D (~`0-nS::~rI~:L ~
.:.,(~`.t3 ,~oun~; IS .. . `½~i~ I ~ ~chsr- O(:17 ``~`~-" . ` - - - >0
..~oy 103.'
oh~~- 3? "m H' C . H; In' `~92 L'.-.-.s;'cis.-~. r--.'. i.'~'.::',0:y 5 ` -`." `50--~. I 1 `;` - -
L 0 ~ 0 0 -~ - . L i'fl~~ .~ ~, 5,
- ~; r~n'ou - ½ -
50- tr~e - - - . - --.hOi~S ton ~ ~ ~ I S'½1 .~i*
- so I Sc t~? r; Ion - S~ `cc fi--~e~3Oc.' I so torn -
Ko 1-~o I _ t ~0,; P." LJ~ ?~cs~ t~y ~ ts1 I.'; - Commun Io-~ I on *.`~ I `;h `~s'~ ~mo:- -
~`-,`3SKi.'Oti 3.-.'~sc .350 ?-...`bb - SC-
..........................................
~ t.~hl - :~h "--(` *.%\S,:1C.'1.'..~F-. , - T: -?-&~1 torn. CIty Sto~½
- ~ (:1~~~5L.3 -
I -. -- I . . .
I-' 1 eso ~ commu S I OC~ 0105 *;~ I t h H --mc -
i',icCs~rney K ~ ~ -- ~ *ohO0~OvO110~~IO$-: .
t.'-or C'esl'sn .1-SC `-;t3nCi-~1one :~hotovoI tI -3y'5 tcrnc - Co1ot-:-~~o ..~Oufl'0$--I5
.Tho11eCe~ C~LenL~oo0 ~~r1SO3 Co1ot-~o'o-
Mooney *~s,cooi.~t.'cc - L 99 - Cously sf ¶ms~'~:--I;-I P'~~fj C,-o-'S.t:'~i'$\1
jQ~:3 0 -
t~o0fl8y ~csocI3tec- .1 99~-'~ DS3ft ~ fOI~ the Counoy of ¶mserI:~1
~enero-1 ~l~n-
Munz ~ - I974~ ~..............of ~ ¼ISI\~ercIty of
CC-~1IfornI.~ ~t-c~-~ 3'es.~e1cy~ C3LIfornIc~J~oe Mcufl0~I5 (19~?~
C~cf~t-o-SO-'~~ -,o-- DO- ¶?~ .?~Sd p~ser.~1 P-'lc~n d5O~~t3
PAGE 261 Show Image
Ofrf~o~ of 9j~nniflO .3fTh~ ~ ~ S- ~~me~aJ.
~ Gujd81~2£..~- 3(~cr~m~n~O, ~ (cI~~d ~
O~f3nos7 S~H - ~ ~~~ector of Public ~orkz - Oornmun1O~~-'.O' ~Ith
H.3~rnon
oh .- - - LI ~ i~PO ~.~~H2Oi of H .L o~v ~CS!j - omrnuq ?C$ t; ~i th
H3~~rnofl -
- `1/f- - ,?q\/l~Onm~nb31 ~ ~ ~Ct~l `~
H~~.~-Ciou~ i\$~~O'. ~~i'J - ~ of T~ouoL~$~ pout.f'~ qOi,~.~~~t'ofl -
..........................
~ ,~Th
?~ ,-. .*- -
`C . ;~,-`-
~ . .
5? C
C~o ~ P --~z~ ~O( ~ - ?o .Th ~ `~
(~ ~ ~m ~1C Ci :.t~io~ t;::C,r.:. ?.~L ./` ~ U1
-, - C~-~
C fTh -~
` ,- `~ `(~
I -`
C (.~
C? `-. ~ -.
C , -~.-
-C
CAI~~hL?''l;c~fl . C . -
5heC~i~~?. L~7~- - `~~Ihe ,--.~pe of he j~s.er~t - ,~z-C.CJ .MCC~ ~ q. :~Q-%. -
-1~ ITh~0~ F~l-modeL ~!CiCJ3UiO? OF
3kC~i'Y'~fl ~ ;;- ~;;~ - ,I~JL$½...P;.~ ;t~C i.½~CQ½~;;~i
Pe~ouO3S -......t;.m~ C00~l1lO.-CO\~,'Y~C ~ - .
C~ii~o~fl'~- d~S- Ceoiool:c.-~i' SCjt\/Cy - i1C?1~O P.:.
3bebbifl~. ~ `.~I f-ro.-?.O 7e~LO~~--.-D~ no the Fi~;-.½C'-1C-
I -~
C `1
~meCLc~n~iO~00\' -I,e~ohe~ ~ ~13-Y -.
Stein hsr~ - P. - lC?9Q. Q
C-nd~noered_Th,nirn~1~__in ~he_~oL~en St;3.'De. S-e~~-~ Clue' ~oOk~- S~n
FI~?C~$CO. ~
Pefe ~C-~?OC~ 0 C CC~IP O-fTh~ I-,~?C C.~ I C?l n j~(jCC~ to `C
PAGE 262 Show Image
T~ra Nova ~1annin~ and ~E~~8a oh, Inc. L?~~ ~nd L0-9~- `~at~r ~1an:
T ~~sft ~nd fi~~5t
Revision. Consu1t~nh to County of Imperiai.
U.S. (~8o~o~icai 5urv~y. US ~ ~uivc~y: `US ~ Into-~'o~,
P~eolo~iO~l Su~~Y, ~ai;er ~ Div'.~ion, 24000 ~V? a ~oad7
L~oun~ ~ ~ C~ ContLnu ~ ~ ~ ~noni t;or?no ror ~ 0
L-he ~ ~ ~ oundi,~ab~ ~
toni bot~~n~
iq~;- ~L~i /~j1d1jf.0 ~jOlOQ~IC~t Cornrnun~o~~on `~ith
>~-3tK-in~ J _
H-~r-rnon.
;0UR7~ :.ms~s -~I~:D
-~ - - ~ C ,L~7- 3 .L>C;> (~ . , - . .--. -
ounby of nyc *1 . ~y of Los (~#nqe~-~s ( `O~7~ 71 -
,1 nyn
~nm.--~nt;$A.-~ ,~~~nnino ~n~: :.nr nrm~L?~Ofl ~ `` -0'" ;-`..,
. .
_ - - - Q -~1
- I i~.C Of CoL'jm.bh;-. - P.O- i~ - C' - - Pc--i ~ ~
__ 2: -~`~fl 3-u r--??-~U ..." - -L t:w ~ ~nf 0 ~n.0 P _ C . - -. -
. - . - -. . . - . .
~(Th
rn~ _____ __-
I _________________________
1~~- ______ __
~lj _______
-L n-' .2-. mc-- - Oni; (~~£-~--.n "I :?n-.-O~nr.:- 7 .`~nL\/u~::--::~';y or
- , . -. - - I~ -I - -
I rho L.-~ -.* ~ 1.-o~ y CL ~ on-- t?Ounc ~. -?oLci `on-:.-- -... ~~-- --th C-h--
- -- n-i
~-P~nbi&oo County `~at~i D'Lo-b-'c~ v. County of 0~-?nqe (`~8I~ ~
P~u ~ t~r S~nsh.b1' ~ ..1nnjnq, pc....jg. Soaq%t~of Suq~r~;o-oL5 ~ .1.22
~ 3LP-; ~
5T~TUi~S
~ C-u'Oei'nes Sections - ~~034(e~ -.057, 1Si~~, ~
L5~-~2~, ~5L~5(o': , - - 15ib'5(c~) (2~ i520~(s~ i5~55, 15;-~5.
.-`~3f~r-n-nc2z- 0t-' P'~I.~ ~nd -.~enei~7~I 1-,~1cn Upoate
PAGE 263 Show Image
0 ~ ~L~N up~~T~ ~ND 0~¶~ ~ (;c-\1~~~L ~L~N ~
~ ~ ~1~n GuicteIffles
tome ~ hj.~h1Ic~h~C~ of ~he OPR dt~Otj~~iOfl or
1 0 ~
~ ~ ts ?o r ~ ~ fl bo ~ 1-1'; oon~ 13 ~ t G?ne I~$~1 ?~
I ~ ~fl b~:fl~1 oon~~.3~$~no;' ~o-qu I ~ernoi~ t f j\/~ .ttm~q~Ion~
of ~a.~~moun b im~of~b~n0C bo the 3t~uo ~`J ~ ~S COP' ~ ~
the ~ener~l qi~n (oF~~ .LO)
St3. bus ~mon£~ Gen~~~1 ~ c~n 1~rno-nt3
11 ~.Lz-men~3 of the CCflet31 ~1 ~n h ~ ~`.:;.u
- 3~o~u~o ~o o-l.~ment L~(~t 1\; 3~IknO;-O"I.. n:~~s' ~O
An mu ..~so Li;.?. 00 o.'fl r
:~ro ho- the ocro- 1 p
.~CJi?i: I Iot;.3 h~~.';\i~efl 0 .?mon(3 ~~..`3m2-~nD3 zh--ou oh £~I .?.½
(ThOr
.~nQUI~~'-.-~ -A n(?~ iO ~ ly COnS I f~C .
y3 ConsI3t3nc'/ ~mon~ the ~1sments (-i nte~-s£S-men D
* ..onsl.&-teno-!,?
* 1 - -` I,~
L *;~~ I~ I ~ .L `C) $~ n ~ n D D ~C m&. no:~ DO i~~' ~r, op r., ~ .`Th ~
I C' D~C ~ .~ .- I * . -~ - .* . - . s~n¾-,*
~ on: - * h *.~ -~ ,,-~ .*- . H ~. $
,.~.-fl.*' :O~C~: C' L?~e t&:~ -:hou ]IM CC 0~S Ion:~ ;`; .
"1*'*~'
~mo Ijc;~*:- I I' CS 3 1 ~ . -` I,' u-~~3 `:1 -
n `~~I r~ L * .~
~~1
nDO,~~S1A:m(3nt CC-C> -~s to-no>,
~ (D(i `-tii~nr ~ ~dot~?'~S3 CI I'~C'J 13 LIon ~ i~CI~ 1Sfl'i3
- Iki ~m ~ J lumen t p O~QS3 COnoo-' `~C0o'
q r `- I t\' 11 I *. *~ICC,~~~i *~*3~Ij
...............................
-~ , I cr9,
- .~ I~ 1 h L I ~ :~ gene ~ 1 p1 :-;`n 3 -~s::-~umo
~ Cl- r~s I~ -~
3 r'SC D `C I' ~>(.`3mO 1 - h~ 13n0 *.j35 .2~C0 hoi..ASlC4
Lement3 3i~S ~3S~0 On ~`~0 3D-'Q3 I A ~S pOQU 1.- DlOC pI~0 jec Ions
~ ~t ol i:feC,5nt tines, thel polloles ms~~ ~3sIlY
oonf I ICD uCr'hCI~, 1 the Isnd use element' 3
~ l~C3 ~IOC5 P~S5~~ t S Pe~soC5 pem SOILS 3tsnds--r~'~ 0W
.~ensI by I~hIlS the housln£ etement ~~-~5~Ct$ sn
unCOIl C13. Dc-C OC ~nr-eoOnol leo' o'~e11 no unl i pe~
`C ~s `2 t/ *:-`t3CO'~Cd oovIOus InoOnsISDeno~ ~5 e~i sb - (0r~P'.
,,~hene'~er `u~ls~iCDIOC sdopDs *s ne~ elemenD o~ smeno's
~$-CD or he ism, D muse oh,cnqe the mest of the plsm to
.~ttmlnSD ~ny 1CCOCSIStCCOIC5 thst DISC CC~ element O~
menomen~ C ~SS tes the ju C 15010 D Ion shou 10 upo'o- DC the
pLsn SD 1C seme time ID ;--OOQD5 the ne~ elemenD CC
smenomenD I ~mrnedisteLy -LheCeSrtSC u,mp9, 12)
½CCSC;1 I CC cc- -~ 3CC~ "CCC C2l Iolsn k.JQOC tC
PAGE 264 Show Image
Cot Code 3eo. kQ(e) C'( r), :oo. $.O.2() 6;o;"(J),
~5o(f), 5o2(.~), 5754 ~ ~535B
:?e~ouoes Code .$eo 2100- ~io01~~c'~), ?-.1L~~5 ~ 1037.)~1(o)
;~ew-zi-~flc.~~ 0! !~!,tL~~ ~C Q~~r~:Th! ~L.:r !jQo~Fo
PAGE 265 Show Image
L~SF;, i~hereve~ ~ ~~~nfljflO ~genoy ~ ~ -3
por~iOfl or ~he ~ by r~f~r-~nce, - *~houIc~ ~8t8rnii~~
h~b no inher~nb Irnoonsi~t~flOi~S ~ p1.~sent before it-3
:~do~biofl, a- ~he~ bhan ~fb~r;,~ard ~ 12)
~ COfl-~j'~b3-flOy .`~~~hIn an ~ ~ ~
I~onzt..3#~~ f~cy ~
-~On ~I~m~n F; ~ F;:~, .~na17C-(?~ ~o~3'~5, ~ ~ `~
im~i~rnentabion oro~~am3, ~u~b b~ oon'3ist3-n~ -ji F;h ~flC
(;om~t.~menb one ~.noF;he--. ~~~ab1 iz-h~~ 9OO-1~ -` --a .~no
~n ~i~e'3 ~o--rn bhe to~ndab~on fo- ~n'1' nsu1n~3 ~oLiOi~~ -
0 j-- one ,oo-~~on or ~ ~!-~rnen
1 ~ ahab .ou~F;½ -~oacz- ~ to
o~'~nirno~at.~ h..h~. ~-o i~oF;'~d 1~\/c-~L 07 ~nof;h-~-
- ~o ~ o r~ 0 ~ ~ati-'-~ f$.-1o-m~ n F; tL-~~o - ~ n~ 7
n .4 - . I 1 1 n -
.`~ L --:f1Ic-:~n (2$- ft WO r.. ~-3-. fl F;.-'- f~1~.?A.: -
~
n~9
Qa1aY~i~a'~ :;;....u CL~½ ( 1~~35 1~6 C - ~(~) - --
LP t;u ---n `~:)0l LC1C~ mu ~ fom a `~O~''~O$11 -t~aa1.:- -, o~
i~mQ 1 (-?men ra F; OP Q --Oc~ r-'am'z . ` _ _
-- -?.:--~ L P COP'?
- *- * ~ -, -` -
-*- 1~i - .-- - - - -. . - -
t~O ...:..~o -~ - - .-- - -~1- .?~P -?-
0 --A--P $-`:--(flffl~- Ii t~/ .~ -P' tfl~ `C O~C-- *;.``:: fTh'¼ !`~ F; 4.
- * ~ (1~ -I
~ ~ -~) L an mu `~0fl lii .~ -~---On Or -`, --`- --.--- -
?,a q an--- ,~-, nc~ ~ -l -- F; o n-$-. h F; h~ LiP- -~
-~ I --OP ..A ~P POU -- -, .-. CL
-~ -~ `- - I
1 -~ t 0 PP~ P --1 -~`. .,;-I'P- ~ f P.~ I 0 -~ -
b OPCi dl' aq?..tIf -.
~ ~ mu~ F; Ono- -~ ~ F; F; `~ I OP-' ~PO F;.~a i'
Or ~ ol P - (~ ~ `p -.i F;
:RPC Lnr0-'~P$A1 ~arta
~pttt~n oOt1O1C~ PO OtO~t ~ms t;h;~r oopr'1'L0~ ~1?-ii-
oop.~e~~ondin9 dia(~P?~m l~ ~ nal ly Inoono- ZOP ~ - _
~~arnoie, L7 a -oenepo-1 ~l~n land u~e 0l~men F; lao -am
~o oa zeo- ~ ~~n~l'w~ tOII~ den~l ty -az- -i-en b-a. de'~eloQmen F;
P fl pea ~hepe tt e e~ ~ OesopIbe~ L'he -oPe~CP03 0 0~1 mc
~ t'jral lano 0 conbain ~P I ten 0 CI S
--p~Sep\JC oQ~n SQ~C~ 1iThlZ area a OnflIOF; -eXI":F;S h
oI~n S bext anO ~I;qP~fnS must `0E?. pCC0nCI~CO ;;eoenF; S~
.~ i~el~ that an ar~ o1~n's text as A~elX as Its 01- Qi m~
mus oe exo--mi ne~ ~n~P dete ~mi n 1 PC- COPS S F;c--PC7
enes `~omeo~ner~ oepaF;IOP ~PC* ¾' LOuPtv -or S
`~qo~ie5 (l0~~) 17/ n J~O SOC;' (n-~~1 --~.)
- uu t ConSI'5F;CPOI I these Peas, F;he OSPePI-' o' n
~ to
`oanPOF; o-rreoblvel/ serve a -~ ~ -----I -
* - on -~ 1
.`~~~6PoI;-< 70 L;~¶~ and C -~ HtaP `dQdatC
PAGE 266 Show Image
c~e~~e1oQmeflt; CecisiOn makors i~i11 face cCflflICtiflQD
directives; cit;i: ens ~i11 be confused aboub bhe qolicies
`and standards bhe communi by has selec bed; an~ land
owners, business, and industy sill be unable to -ely on
bhe Q~enera1 plan's seated prioribies and abandads 7 or
bhei r o'Mn individual decisIon makinq beyond bhis
LncC)nsisbencles ln the 9ener.~l plan ~~qose -~he
ju r isdic b ion bo e~pens ive an~~ en~ bhy 1 b _ on bo
resolve i.~hab already should have been ebb1ad (PC~ !~
The Q~eneral plan should be reviewed --eou larly regardless
OF ~5 horizon, *~n(i --~vised as ne~ information be~~om--~
a v :;~ `L lab Ic *~:nd as communi by nec'~s `~nd v~ ~ C -
~n1ess I b is perio~~caily Llpdabed *~ p
obsoleF~C In bhe ace of communi by chanCe ~
;z)'?:*.~c~ Cr oI~ ~ ~ b. ~ ma b i-on -no *.-~ ro JCC iqo -.
* ~ ; ~~*q
I n'~ *~a - - 0 *-~~ ½ .0 day JOC I 10 ~a ,L~ - - p .~
I-c ~ 1 t ~ ~j~1 ~ja be . b .~ l `~ be mo i~C 3-u soy-
ucp~sshtil l<~q~l hal lo-.n~e ~ ` 14
* ;~.~pe OFs'd er-) !PSkC w~nn~.n~ -sn n¼~e -
C I I ) I I `~. he~' *:~ ~ n~(. C-;::-; ~.;-.` ry ~ * je ne .. -~
a -~ ~ di ~) 1 :1 n - e v i *- Q F C-. C- nc;u I Cd 5:00 1' :. - -
QI ars:. - ( t 4
- I. -
I J-.;d~ F b r-n-~ * -0-- d~ ~ -~s .-*~ ~ P. -
1 rn or d I ajC ram-C-.. s~ to ~ `.~J i -~ h b he ~e ne I 0 1: -*
~ ~no'~k ; *~~ebailed enou*-h so bhs'b bho ij$&-s,,~5 or he.
pi n `elecbcd and ;~r~po1nFC.d offiol .:.;~Ls .
~r -eac~ F;he same *Cener:~I ocrolusi'::'
DO L~ `J~~ or any parcel Cf I-.~~.nd ;.~b *~ 0~I ~u
on- 0 F ~ b~ s ~ r cC~~ by C;- p hys I ca ~
-- ~(-rI fl~ (& F 3;½OtJId *.`.lso Ce .01.-:-.. t;D `ise .
n , i no I III 1 nc a rafn D di ~ P .~nl5 - n coo I. I na F
p
1s.~y- boc:.--y I s-nQ~ -`15 I~ a ni.. I n S w.:~--c-. r..jc u L~?. CICO IS IOn -a>JI~C"
su ph's Ical develoQmenF; scheme
~ Ida)
%.heneve r s-. JU r Isdio bion adopts a 0CL~ ~ lemen b or amends
parb of bhe plan, i b rnusb chanQ~e bhe resF of bhe plan bo
-Cl Imina be any inconsisbencles -~ha b bhe r~'~ elemen F Oi~
amendmen b 0 rca bes - i;he ~u isdlo blon should uqda be 1he
plan at. bhe same bime I b -:.-dopbs ~he ~e'~ elemenf; 0-
..mendment, or immediaFely t.hereafber - ~ i~)
Las b, `q~henever a planning aqency cons iders adcQ1;Inc
porbion Cf he plan by ref erence, IF should deFermine
bhat no inherent inconsis~encies are Qresen~ beFore lbs
.~dootion, rabher bhan after~~ar-d- ~ I~)
,~,-C;CenC1.~ F-or ~ and gene rat ~~`tan I.jOi~I~ be
PAGE 267 Show Image
C~UTDC-~INC-~
~)~C 151;Q Oumu~.~~iv~ Zmp~o~s
(a-~ Cumu13tiv~ imp3-otS 3h3-11 ~e disou~sed ~hen ~h8Y ~
zignifio3flt -
(b) Th~ di~ouo-s1ofl of cumu1~bi/~ j~Q.~Ot? ~h~1I o-f~~o
*~i~OLO 0
~hc ~eve~ity of bh~ 1mq~ot3 ~ bhei ~jL'~1~~
o00u r ~ bu b ~ di~otj0z--'ofl m~~d no~ o~c7~ H~
~s I~ 0-0V?~d~d of bh~ ~ff~ci;z ~ ro h&~
*;oro~~C~ ~1ore. ih6 Q1t.~0U~~10fl ~hou1d b~ ~u~dc~' O\! ~
0~ ~0bIC~1~ by $~r\~ ~ -I.
~ ~i0 qo--oo-~~~~y bo C)*.n .?C)0-qu$~b~
~~s0'J-~ Ion ~r oum~~is- bl'~-~ -mo~cr; -
1 boor
~ ) ~ 1 I t of D$~0- -I Q ~`~~0-!~ b :~n~ -~ --
rnQ.~0 ;;D- (C)
~ ) (:~ *~~mrn ` ~ ;.t~o 3;- C~. (: mit; ~on r:~i ~ -~ ---I
.~do~t~d qen~n~1 ol ~n o~ --.~I~-bo-d p~~nnIn~ oo~rn~n-;
~hloh I: ~ ?:.v~.. lu s-~ b~ (~i:~-'7(IOfl$.-~l 0; s~;o-$~--*c?
n n~ 0 CU mc--- n r. ~ -3-- -
0o nd Lb 10 `Th fl\ u oh
- -~ --
flO-; C. -~ r~ fl - -- 0'
C ~ bh.-z~ -~ C
A'
- 1
C
- ?: r I - I -~ t -~ 1- -~ Ii ----i,, --
IC
IMh " 1 fl or-rn--~ U 0 L ~
bh~ `-v-.~n b 0 1-~0 `i;z .~r-; C- ID--. ---...h -~`.~m
~I~fl 1 r cc-.;;- oumu .`~$1 1½~ `i-I
~I'l $J;oi~C;.
o A b-h ..;-.om'~ )r-~ (C t--~ r-h~ on 7 ~ i L -;~ m 1 .
Oi.jmu 1.;-; -~ \io. Im -~; ~ m--:~v nvolvC--' bh~ 3C'O~ r; Ion
0 r- ~ ~ blon.-- -.3 t;h.~ r- -;.;sn Who- ;my~o-.3 I W Ofi 0-I `.C)OflOl
on -3 0r-~) - - ----- - ~ --
~ ~h~n s-.n~l-;cing -he Cu1rnul~bI\/~ -Imqsot of ~or-ojo-Cr .-j;~er-
L~lD~O(o)(.l~(~) Whe L~~d :~OCflC7 I~ r-~quir--~-~ bo I~I~C-j'~0 nor
only ~p oved Q r-O,3CC b~ und~ r- Cono- t nuc b ion 3nd -3~O r-,~V~I r--- .3 D~O
Qr-OjeCt~ not; icr- mdc- ~~;~1,-UCbi0fl, ~ub -~i~o `i;~~0i ovc.0
:or-o DeCt~ our--en t;ly Ulfide,- ~flV1 onmen t;~l r-CVie~ I
~m~.-~oz or- ~n£Ch ;~~ul b In ournu 1 bIte im~.eot~ - 1 n
c.-hould Inoluoc -~ di'--~ouz~ion of orojeo:~ uflaer- ;3v~~I~ D~' he
vc-n
Le~~ ~oenoy ~nd orojeo~s under- r-evie.~ 107 obhe
`.-~oenoie~ (j~Ifl0 ;~~~on-0'l~ Cr--I or- bo o'I~oove~, t~CIOC -flO
-~i~ouss bhe other- ~ ~r-oCeCt3 `-he oumu
c--na1y~i~ r-equi.-'-e~ -~ 01~Cu~sI0fl of 01r-03CC~ ~1 bh
cumulor-ive Imp~or-~ ~hIon couled ~ ~eC0-tlvC
;~)eCl~.r-~bI0fl~ or- I,~er-e e.~em~b f;om ~ - (?-~ee ~
r-o; ~ Lt-~ .C~i:j?I.~r-h~y - - .`-t;p~j~~nC½¼...qo
-- ~fj -
<~q~en(~1-.~ ror' DF:.P s-'flC -&-`~~neI--3l `I~ -
PAGE 268 Show Image
(19S4~ 1~1 C~1 app. ~d 61.) The oou~~ in ~ rook nose o~
bhe Qrob1~m of ,~here ~o dr~L~J the line on projeots under-cjoin~
envi~onmen~~i )-~V~e~J *?~ince the ~~plio~~ion of ne~ projeots a~e
oong~3nt1y being *3ubmi~~ed. ~ e3son~b1e poin: rnioht ~e .-~fter
bhe p~ep~i~~ion of :he ~ ~¶r'~ ~ ~Ion~1 ProJeot
tnfn-rma~ion oo~1d ~e included in the tinsi ~ if ournu1~~iVe
irnQ.-~Ot3 \`~Ct-~ o~i~in~l l~y .~n3l7:ed in ~he ~r-~ft ~¶p .~nd if th(-B
ne~j o ro 3C0 ~ info ~ D ion doesn' : ~ --~n r the ~ r~Q$~ :~-~ r.~-.on 0 *.~
~ or .3u~p1emenb~1 ~ -:~~ r-equire'~ ~ C~eotion ~
the ~u~de1ines. ~ (guidelines ~eo 1~k:-o ~1.~ou~~1on \\
~ ~ I
-~ ~
I- h~ ~LI r- C ~ I.-- fL.5.hb LmQro'~emen~ ~5~z-n................*-~CQ;m:. kin i~ r-
:$*L~?~ ) 4 ~~-~.76 ffi.. ~-- ~L7 :£~- -.~Q-~~Ci~ ion ~
- -~ Li 0 P i- ~ ~ JQ i-~'rn&?. 1,011 on i d~W p
~i ~~~Z-?---iOP ~ 0 0 i-Cot; *~1 t;ern~t; PC i~0~I I
~ rno~b impo :~nt~ t;he I~~QDi-1.~tU1~ P~ ~~oro~~IY
1 r~o t;h--~ t; -~ t;he pot I 0~ ~ -,
t;n- oc: ui~ 0\' pmc-'-P t--s-. 1 ..-oCnO -
P L - ? I t--? I~ I~ 3 tO 0 (-0p(~.:~O0 - F -
PC - ~ ;-~u~d ~ ip -~
p -~Li hot; 3P ~ -
I -~ -~ - -- - -~ -~
- p -- -~pq.p:. or -~ r. 7o-~ ho
I 0 P OF ThC `~ -- - ~r OP (501J -~C -~ - --.1
ic --
or m ) - `C me i ro- 0 ~ hE ~ 1 to r no t; ~ IC I~l
Co. -~ ?-.$ -u~c:i. - ( `*;`) - ) Tho-'-~o -:-11to--.r-n~~ rni-~--~ ~o
i oo,J-- -5-C'- - C~I0P - - tho--oc- ~ 1 ~ n~ t;' 70-5 --~ou 1 ci i m~~-C-:~C to
::,OnIH.; `~o--c~t--s--C PC -;: t --*~s~inm0--n~ of the qo j-~O O~ ~CO T;
~01 I I -~ :o-o mc r-C COO- l `y - -- do-- I I pe-s Ooo - L :- .----
* ~ I' -~
-;-I~o-- `.-0--~.0OiP'O c~;~ 0r-07'~Ci0PO --:-~nd -`UL do-- (I~ ~ ~ -
o-- ---:?, -I -~ 0 r p P ] ,i ~ 0 1- `.~ no t i 0 P
h-A t; C - OP -~ - or ~ r. ,- C..: I ~ 0.-.. -
.~I'~O ~o--O -~ :.~r C k-hO ouC1IL~ ~ oy ;ho--
0 Ci o I (!,~Ji' toil ~ `~l 7e \ n~icWo--rin~ y, In. 7'-~ ) - Cl
d p771
90 197 [1~~ ~ -~ j, It;.~lIO~ ~
~ur~l Ho--iqh~~ ,~~qp.r½ ~t 400
¼ m~tt;er or 10910, t;he ~ must ~e prC~o-rCoi be-roro-- the
4, n bo ~ppr-o\/e the oroject. Nor untIl pro3eOt
O~ 0731 dcc- the ~9o--PcY determine i,~hether to impose ~nY
ml ~tiOn me~s-dIo--S on the promo--ct. (so--c ~ .1, cu~~-
One connot be oert~ in untIl then `~h~t the o--,~~ct;
mit~~C~iOP me-sures sill `OC, much less ~hether .~noi to
~ dec-co-- t;hey `-~il1 minlmi:o-- envi ronment~l effects -
I_~ ~t 401.)
so-- no:e tho--t 1 ternazives Poi ml t;i~atiOP
measuro--5 hive the -oame functiOn~-oiiminishin9 or av~IoiIP9
.oiverCe o--n7ir-Onment~l effecta. he chief coal of o:-~~ lo--
*.he mi t I OC ~ ~on 0 1 070 IClaPOC of o--nv I ronmen to 1 ha 1-rn -
~ppenClIx or DC- ¶~ and .`~eneral elan Update
PAGE 269 Show Image
-- *~1t~--n3biv~s ~ a type of miti~~~iOfl (L~uei
at 4O~.)
- - - ~onc1usory oommenb in -upport of enviionmenr$~1
o0n01usiOfl~ are ~eneraII7 inappropriab~ (3~e ~eoo~e V.
0 ~9 0.~.3d at pp. ~S~o-~42 ~
i~or~oVer the .~I'? ` a at~tutor-y coal o~ pubilo inforrnation
e9ar~i no ~ P r-opoac~d project has not been -net; t.~?- ~
provides no ,;nfor~& tion to the publ I to o~nabl~ It to
understand, ~va1uate, .3.nd respond to the bare assertion
of nonaval lablil ty of alternatIve ~paoe - The ~-ey Issue
1--- ~hether the seleozion and discussion OT c.~i;ernatives
ii~TO ni~d ~ onma1,\Ino -~n~ In~~rmed ~ub~'o
( ~
0 ri uu I d~ 1 1 nes ~.-ao - ~ )ubd - d)
~ 0 ~ L ur~ 1HeIohts sup --~ ~ ~ -
oo5n~ n 0
h~ ~ ~ 1 h~ Crl tica~....
:.AI 5. t,n(.~~ t m$::.~n ` n£~ r -
e,~natI\/E~c- n n I
I- he (------ n
l 0 can
orocess. - - - 0 ~cilitat~ 1~n~~' n ~ nri~~ ~
c ~ c~n ~ n r ~ - ~ . 11~~
0 fl n
I . -- I
r I 1cr-I I -
I n-- )I 0
LI
- , I ~ r CI n
1Th -~ --m-- 1 -- r - - IJh~ ~ C I~ 1
C-'. n m n ~-` I I' I n o 0 t n ITh fl
~ 0 ~ Q p ` c - n ~ P t I
Cur U I I- In O C 0
fJnI (1 `~ ~` I n
¼055I~.~I~~ .~oun.w
~nd, nc~
~nvi ~ I~f0.ri5C
- -~`-~ ~
tar I ~bI ,, ,.1 -, -I
I ~ur~ ~ ~
In~ riro ~eo~ proponent ~spcnsibI lily to provide
.oequ~t~ I~is~u~sion OT alt-ernal ~ (`.~uideiines cc.
D-~, ~d00. That resQon~i0i ry Is rid depenoeril
n I.~C i ra F. Iris tance on a sno~i no 0" the oub l lo ~n:-. I
I
-here are `-eas~ole al tern t; `-ves . i-i, the pro cc I
proponent concludes thai; there arc no -,easI~la
--I C I- ~ 1 I I~ explaln n Ineanincjful oe~aii In the
.-:~ he oasis Or that concluCion. (Laurel ~eI~hts~
cuora, at ~
- - - numerous ~ orovisions reoulne thaI an
occualely Ces0ri~e feasl'o.le al ternalives. ~~cVJhere in
0~i;~, ho~ever~ is ther-e a provision hal Ihis outy Is
conoi ionai on ;-. project opponent comino for'.~ard lAlIth a
`ocumente~ alternaIlve. Laurel H e21...oh ta ,.~ ~LYLP..fl~.' ~I O~ -
i-or UThC. ¶11 Ind ¼~ene r' Il I lan Iipda IC
PAGE 270 Show Image
(1.) The fo~emo~b pincipiC .jncer i~ that the
~~qj3i.~tur.~ Inbended ~he ~ct to ze ~ ~n such 3
rnannC~ ~S to afford ~he fu~1est *zos~i'~~C orotect~Ofl to the
environment ~i thin the reagona~L~ gooze of the *zta~utor~~
( 1 ~
13n~ua~e. (5¼½;..e.n..as OT Mammo rh V. o~u~of~u~erV 3orc~
~ C~~d ~ 5~: [.~()4 C.~. ~i, _ o.~ ~ ~ . .Th~
L~9i.-.13t~re hs~~ ~mqn.3si~~d hat -.~e ~ ~ of -he
L.e~i3i..3tur~ ths~t ~ii ~~eno1e~ of he z-;~t~ ~ ;~hich
rO9u1~tC 3-0ti~jtiCS ~hjoh are -o~n~ ;o ff~o: ~ *~~~~t'y o~
~; ~3 -1 ~ ~a~or
the environment ghaii re(~uiate guO~
oon~i(1er.?t'.on ~ oiv~n to ~ ven~1~ ~ --~q~~n
(3~~ ~1Ci~@ ~u~d ~ ~L~jre~ ~
` r~i~oi~ma tional ~o(-uI~~n t ~ n~ ~ ~`J ~ C;
i -onm~n ta) trnQ~o~ ~~n--~ ~
thiC zi~ L ?C ~ n ic--n? -d ,~r rcr' or ?.0OU ~
~ s.~
.
t i ..-~ --I ~Ja-2 r r t he 1
&?~rf~ct$ ot --uch :?.~ or O~~Ot rni~nt OC ~~-;n~rn iCed fld ro
1r~clio).~t3 .~.1~~ernat1/e~ to *.-~uoh .~ ,o.-ojeo `i,. r~~:
~ ~ ne-i: ~ L ~ .;j~~i-*: - -~
- - ~ i--OV ~ qq h" 0 --
1;
p
ic..
I - . -- -
11 ~ *~ 4 ~ r ~.2.-. nm
:-~~ 0 oj--r ~-p&2'.f
U .L ~ -. .. ` rn~ - - C - :.
iL thr-.- ;.`i-im$-r
Li ~ --n~ ~de-.~d ~ p hr 1 -
~ ro ~C t 1 r ~ ~ *~PO ~ --. -
-~ -.-,I.*.~, - .- .-. 7 -~ - - -
of ~h - -` I,
;n~r? ~ -;;he h'~~ t 0 - - .t: - -` - ~ -
_ - Cot..' nty fj. I. -½ - -
~c)e oertiff5-eo I rooesc:~
~OCUffl6P t ~ ~ aCoou P ta~ i ~ I ty
no~ OfllY the environment ~u p; ormed ~~If-
~0~Cr-pfflCPt. (L.~uQ3J. Heiq~~3 aD ~- -
- - - a1(]'..nir~ioant oumuIati\/C .~~-F~CO- C-; ~ --
00p~ide red P .`~P :-:L'~. (~ec. iC,~ - ~ 0 ~ PC-.,
ec- ~:L3-Q. uh.d. (.~) ~p.~PO,_C'~O' - -~
- I - ~P.~~L0II
~ 2
OPPO-OP (\~k9S5) /0 C.~-~d ~ :~-~~-- -.` - -
The r~Uid~iinCC e,~~1ain that -C -LgoJCOIOP - ojmula ~ivC
~ffecZs ghOUL enoo~paC$ ~agC7 0--C~~~-
0 ne~ ~ -
0
uture - ie~~0-. --~-~~-- _
r,~g guora
uod. (~)(.~)(~~ italics addea.; -U~~
at -2--~~.;'
~ ho Id r hat an ~1I~ musO ,3PcL~$.C --na _ ~`g-Ls of the
~n~'L,.-onm'ental otrec ra of ru ture ex0-.;:~c- on .- o~PCr
o -
Ao,oepdi;~ or D~¶~ and `.;enet-:-.~ lan ¼0o~.
PAGE 271 Show Image
if: ( I ~ i ~ i~ --~ r-~ason~b1y ~ oon58~ueno~ of the
iritL3-l ~~ojeot; nd (p2) the fLiture ~ or ~o~~ofl
`jill ~e ~i~nifiO.~flt in th?t it sill likel7 ch~fl9e the
~oope or nature of the initial ~roJeOt or- i:z-
environmental effects.
This st3nd$-rd is consistent `~~ith the qrinoiQle that
"~n'--'i --onmenb~l oonsi-der~tion3 do not ocoome submeI---~e(5 f'~y
oho~Qin9 .-~ i.3r--;e qi--ojeo~ into ~ lit ]~o--- ones-o-$-O?- f'j ~
~ minimal ~o tentil 1fll9.-~O t on the onvi- (-onf~er~ t-('jnjon
o?Jmul$~tivelY rn~y hive dis3-strous oonsequenoes~
h --
~c --it ~ ~--?.~4-) (Lujol ~ei-~ ~
iA~n ~l ~ nQ~ the -UD~ - s~ot?on -JiI- -` -- .- n1~:~o$~n7 In
Like]-~' n~'~oe the -?-OOO.C or no- t-jre
I
*Ui. -hi;- :~- o -.
I i::. ---
n .-- ; r ( - n r A - - ~- * 0 ~
- ------I-
~O.?5 ~CD t m~ on I1~~ r; no -~ no I ~` 1 -- I - nQ
1n\~nI\~~~ some dC9i~~~ of f0t--~-----;inq ~4hil-~
-,-o--e-..-:e~ n~i ~ n rID(-o.see:~Qt- not k~( 1 , --n UjCriOY
m U St.. 2 0 n .*-? -r r 0 r½ n nIl 2: C: 0 S.? O
I P -~
--I-
~O2 I~.0-l iC_In.: *~UJqi- . -,
-, .-.j~'. F) ~N -?n-L.
- I - - .- - - -- -
~nnv L~iP0 0; *) .
The comnen t;z.- --~-
- - ~ -~ ----c~ *--. -- I -~ o-'.JS -
½~(:1 - *- -~ -A .-~ - -- C - -;?. -C t.~mfi C.. - -
n 1
nor.~.-. ~ the--.-;e ~1
I jevelo~~~O n; ;~qh ~ n umbo---;- or ~;O 03-0-0-)- ----Ion
- - -
-~ - I -~
? Ul n 1 I 0 P 0 r - 1- - - n ~ P
~ qe;- --U i - Ind ;-.-~e&~ the; i no. -- he - n-. -3 2-
~ OS - The I C.- ~ r.3-;- es-1--ioro -~;.-~o- -~ - - --
- -C))) n-n
h-LOP oLso ho-- *:~n
0--I--- -~ - . - -- - - :.~,,**`* - -- --
tormCi-- t LOP - P --ome- . -~-. -I I-~ .01 0P~;; --i. - - -.
0 meQI E.J nde r p or I L~<-~ U~ ~Y 0 i 0 ~
been -I - - -
7C9EBtCi-tiOP. .-~nother Ciozo- 15 thCit of oarent n;Io~~ ~
~hioh ;~CiP'*~C5 from yoUnc~ seo~iments to very 0lJ~ ~~lOU
bedrock - The sU rf 303 con~1qUr3r.Ion o~ the lCindSc0-.0~ no
rne .~eqth of the ;-~~rer Cible is 01150 .1mQor~tCi;½;~l The I -
-~ - - oh
o-o1-rorm1nc~ -~-CiOZ0( 15 Ime ¶P ;;~e e-3Pt
t.~ke ploce much more slc~ly - - - - The r~ooe por-ico fls o-~
I:~esert soil-:- .-;~e UPlOUC P thot - mU,-InY of -~hem CiVe Ci
001--ous -strucure. then thst rnCiterlCii ~ .J~~Iurbe-~, this
qorositv is los~ 0 some deoree. (BL~~ I?TI~, P
~ :;j-1~~cTS ON -ROUND ~ ~
Thor-loul turc--l mo-sot-s -on ,3r0und~3ter r escuroe~.
Th o0P)))LOP -Pc ½OIPr-?-.II or iP(-L~-stL0P *~Jo--~eP sloqlhcd.
ThQqend1;~ or Cir.¶P~ ~ ):~e.ne~r~~))I P- 1-sn ¼;qdo))O--
PAGE 272 Show Image
~uf..*3C3 50il~
On *~g~ioul~U.~l land filters rh~U~h ~he ~ ;o
03~~yin~ ~j~h i~ ~ ~~bs~~nc3s
evapot~3n~~irabion, Vhe oono8nbr.~~ion of di~sol\Ied ~al~3
in ~he peroolat3 from ~r~igation i~ ~ or zhr'3e times
~~33b3r than in ~he .~pqlI3d - In oorrn6a~l3 ~oil'3,
~~0~SS ~aDo-J ride ~h3 oot :on~ of ~4~lt deQosi~3 ~y
l~/ ~hl0t~L~o-,
oa----yin~ di~~ol\'8d f~inei:'~l3 ~
-:ulfab~ ~nd *~odium lono) Lo ~ounc~at?~. ~H,c~:.mme.r p iC4)
Th~ ~--ac b108 of i ~~igation usually involv3~ aQQlyino
aQoD'i~n~~il.?\...:tion ~nc~
more 1\'ab3r han is consumed `~\` ~
di r~3c t; ~e cc l.3t ion bo grou ndt,~ ~ r This r-ac DiO3 rssu l b§z
in `?i ~her 0\~~~l$~nd runoff nr ~ ~ s3~?-~~c~
~~..~3rccur335 prom ~hic~ bhc Ln ~~urn floes $P~
q
i-3j5O in .~ubsequen~ i -~l- i ~ 35 -
r~~s35
no
n ~ir ~
m~.
cr~nc~n b r-& ~ on of d iz;~$)O i\".'.~td nj~r' ~l ji ti~ ~J;0' AI&. 0.'
53 ~round~~ f;3r ¼u.:~i i i;y in b~c sou ~ horn .-.t~¾' ~cu
c3n~.'~1 5 ~ ~ has de ~3rior~ ~cd from mTi I tzr ~ lion ~f
irri~ar;ion r3burn t~IO~5 and ~he bul I du p of s-:A~i
~ ~o oc,n~inuF;- fo %h~~ f OP ?:.S~3$;b 1'..
p
I - -~n
Ii ~ r ~
mc
F `~u b t ~somc. h3:~ l - ~ on I ~
~ I' ~n.* Lon ~ n ,/ II'--, ~ ,
`Oci 1.3 i;~ n ~ C:AII~~ ~I ~ bh D1~ ~h ~ ~ ru V'~' I
oti nci~$' ~ ~ n ~ he -a ru ~ t3'~ :0 ne - ~0O ;~ n~
~ ~ i c ~ ion 0 i no --qan i n i 0~3 -` ri L i :3 r a~~E
~o h've ~ r;o ~he ~ i'L53 ~ nitp~t3 l3v~
n nany ~j cu 1 ru ~1 :~r3a5 3 1355 - i no P? a535 ~
iso ~einq c~~'CP7~d und3r of `mi Pw-~~a3c-i 301
i~h3r3 or~ anic *~0;- I c'onI.-ii t;ionePs -I .?.PPI 1~d ~p~&-r30 F
0F'~l bra~io0 of bhc-- ~~~P;-~0.-. ion .j0C13P ~` y,:F3J L
`~i bh i~ell~i~P~I03d soils cannob ~e op3\~~r'j~~d ,~i ~ FL
?~andoninQ~ ~ertili:3...bioO and converZinQ~ bhe ve~eratLoO
back t;o nabura.I- - - - bh.e amou0~ of f3rb ii ~i .~ppIi3d7
C;O~I permeabilitY) and robe of i~aer i0Fi~ bion are all
key ~ac toPs inf luenci na the mo\/emen ~ or n t P:- be to
\~;Pound~at3P (Hammer) ~ - io~)
The problem or pisinq nitrate levels ~0 .~pound~ater5
occurrin'~ in many p~~~O05 of arabIc land - - Serious
oroblems are occurriOc i~her3 small to~~~ns in rural areas
use ~round~ater s a drink inc; source and I~here rormer
culti~a ted areas are urban' :30 and yjells installed or
domestic suppuCS- To make he predicament ;~or53,
~~sibl~ treatment for removal of ni tra~C -irom drinkino
i~ater has not yet been perfected - (Hammer) P -
.ppendi~ ~ D~I~ 30d (~3nc.-~raI 0.lan jQdabC
PAGE 273 Show Image
ATTORNEY AT LAW
GLENN L. GEARHART
1 3141 CENTRAL AVENUE SUITE H
C~INO. CA 91710
(714) 465-1101
FAX (714) 627-6167
March 15, 1993
Mr. Jurg Heuberger
Planning Director, Imperial County
939 Main Street
El Centro, CA 92243-2856
RE: (1) County of Imperial, Draft General Plan Update,
Jan 25, 1993.
(2) Draft Environmental Impact Report for the
County of Imperial General Pan, Jan 1993.
(3) Letter to Mr. Jurg Heuberger, Planning Director,
Dated: April 21, 1992, Subject: Application for
Mount Signal Specific Plan Amendment to the
Imperial County General Plan, Environmental
Information Application and Copies of Report.
(4) Letter to Mr. Jurg Heuberger, Planning Director,
Dated: April 22, 1992, Subject: Application for
Mount Signal Specific Plan Amendment to the
Imperial County General Plan, Filing Fee and
Additional Copies of Report.
(5) Feasibility Study and Proposal for Regional
Commercial and Industrial Business Pare overlay
to the General Plan, Mount Signal Area of the
Imperial Valley of California,
Dated: April 21, 1992
Dear Mr. Heuberger:
PT have reviewed references (1) and (2). I found both documents
failed to include the Mount Signal Specific Plan Amendment
7721 application filed with your office on April 21, 1992.(See
references (3), (4) and (5).
~o correct this deficiencv the following is requested:
1) A subseQuent Draft Environmental Impact Report for the
County of ImperIal General Pan be completed to evaluate the
environmental effects of proposed Mount Signal Specific Plan
Amendment project.
2) ~he draft General Plan for the County of Imperial be
774 updated to include a specific plan amendment area consistent with
the Mount Signal Specific Plan Amendment application.
If I can be of further assistance please advise.
Respectfully submitted,
¼
Glenn' L~ ~~arli>a'#~
Certified:
PAGE 274 Show Image
Prevention is ~he key ~o ~ qu~1ity m~n~~emen:
- ~fber oont~rnina~ion, ~e~edIs~1 ~o~ions *3~~
ineffeo~iv~ ~ natur31 pu--ifiC~tion
deo3des.Knot~1ed~e CT qo~en~i~~ ~OUO~S ~no
oompr-ehensive unde ~st~ndi ~q of the hyd -(~9'eoioCJy CT
~eQ3.'~0fl ~ r-e `00th C5ZCr'T i~1 tO 0 ,~ov~n bi no k.0olIut-~on.
(H~mmer, 0.
he n~ tu ~e CT ~ q r~ou nd'.~. be ~ sys b-rn de ~e --rn ` nes ~
a
teohnf~ueS s~v.oi1ab13 to ~--evenb, moni to--, c~no
~ bion - Prevention is ci ~~Cb?d to'~:~ -ci -he Cu -Ce ~v
oonst-!JCtion, .~nd `~itif~0. toni -o---n~
or op~i design,
fl -
*---L---.'~.'~*-- ;\n~~ y ~n' i ~on
-m Con t~rnin~-~e5 Q~r-Cun~~~ F? :~ ~ ~ :~C':.-.cn
-~ , - *-
nr `0 ~ -~F *~C'. *`! -`?~
-` ~ii
c-eon b--C]-
oon b~rni n.~ t for ,--C~~.iChC'. t h~ ;o ~ r; C' 30h;.
ondern n~~ion of the !,~atC-',- ~uyp)y or- ~ i,-- ~ men
he ,~ ~o. -3 f~~C t *~ ~ t3 r-n~ F I3~ . `."~..:~IflfnC r - - -
~~)CC nd I ;~ 0 2 ~ i P- ~ nd ~ n~ r i ~ 1 s--n `io~a be
PAGE 275 Show Image
5uTHE~LA~D ~
A CORFORATON
~ SUTH~R~NO ATTORNEYS AT ~AW TE~EpHoN~
~ ~ 5u;T~ 7, ~ ~P~RtA~ ~~t~OING AREA CoCa 819
RA~OY J. ~~TT~N 300 S0IJT~ :MP~RtA~ Av~N~£
RAVtN0C~ 5A~RA EL C~NT~O. CALlFO~N[A 92243
RAC~C~ ~. ARAG0~
~ A5~w0R~~ March 22, 1993
Mr. Jurg Heuberger
Planing Director
County of Imperial
939 Main Street
El Centro, California 92243
Re: Comments on Draft Environmental
Impact Report for General Plan revision
Dear Mr. ~euberger:
have reviewed portions of the above-described document. As a
concerned citizen of the City of El Centro and of this County, I
wise to specifically question the proposed land use element. r~ihe
document prepared by Brian Mooney and Associates discusses at
page 39 and recommends that a five year "moratorium" be placed on
the removal of lanes rom the agricultural category except in
certain conditions unless it can be demonstrated bv the affected
person a clear long term economic benefit to the County. It
7,75 would appear that the standard and ineans to evaluate it are
vague. In view of the substantial livelihood of economic growth
in Imperial County anticipated with the proposed North American
Free `trade Agreement among other things, and the depressed
farming economy, this "moratorium" would disproportionately
affect agricultural landowners who discover their land is unable
to be used economically in agricultural production from achieving
another use of the property and being needlessly regulated. I
would like to be further informed of the reasons for this
proposal and the legal basis upon which it is supported.
Very truly yours,
SU~HBRLAND & GERBER
A ?rofessional Corporation
`<)&w~yi7~
Randy J. Rutten
~ g~
~~AR 2.~~93
~Mp~~AL coum~
~ 1~~p~CTlON
PAGE 276 Show Image
RECEIVED
19~3
To; Jurg Heuberger, Planning Director
~IAP£R1AL COUNTY
From: Edith Harmoi~~ ~ANNI~G DEPARTM~T
Date: March 17, 1993
Re: Request foi' extension of Coniment period for public review of
Draft Program ETR for Draft Imperial County General Plan
776 because 12 Urban Area Plans with their maps and 2 Community
Area Plans with their maps were not included in the Draft
General Plan Land Use Element Appendix A as stated in Text.
T~e Draft General Plan Update contains no map of the Proposed
Land Use Plan. Why? How is the reader to know the locations of
t}ie various land use designations described in the Draft General
Plan Update? There is, however, such a map included in the DEIR as
Fig. 4.
The i)ra~t General Plan Lend Use Element (p.3) states that:
"Appendix A contains more detailed descriptions and maps of the 12
Urban Area Plans which are adopted concurrently herewith as part of
this General Plan Land Use Element." Under discussion of Cornmunity
Area Plans, the Land Use Element states that: "Appendix A contains
a detained descxiption and maps of these Commi~nity Area Plans [Palo
Verde and ocotil~o/Nomirage] which are adopted concurrently
herewith as p~~rt of this Land Use Eletnent. . ." (p.6). The Hot
Mineral Spa/Bombay Beach Cornin~inity Area was to be based on three
separate potentially outdated existing plans.
Land Use Element Appendix A in the bound volume I received
contains only 3 pages and is entitled "List of Organizations and
777 Persons Consulted". Nowhere in that volume is even one of the
Urban Area Plans or Community Area Plans. Without the referenced
detaited Urban Area Plans and Com~~~nity Area Plans, the Land Use
Element is internally inconsistent with respect to text and niaps.
Govt. Code Sec. 65300.5 req~~ires interr~al consistency within each
element and among the elements as explained in the OP~ State of
California General Plan Guidelines. If there is internal
inconsistency1 the general plan is legally inadequate. (Curtin,
1993, p.22.
On larch 11, p993 my husband and I stopped at the Planning
Departinent to req'~est copies of the missing 12 Urban Area Plans ~nd
pIan~ ~n4 m~p~ for thc co~rnunit~ ~ c'~ £`~i ~he Land Use
Element. Planner Norma Lii] egard was ~~n~'~le to find copies of the
fn]* ssing Area Plans, but said she would check ;~ith the County' S
consultant., Brian Mooney. I was unable to reach `qer when I called
on Friday. On 3/13/93 I received a copy 0£ 7 pages of text for t}ie
Ocotillo/Nomirage Conimunity Area Plan from Jessica Stepner of
Mooney's staff. The cover letter stated that she had "not yet had
a chance to update the water bL~dget that is referenced in the
Plan". She further not~'~ ~ ~ ~ -, ¶
PAGE 277 Show Image
I am sure you are well aware that March 22, is the deadline
for comments on the Draft Program EIR for the Draft General Plan
Update. ~ow can the p~ibTic be expected to evaluate the adequacy of
a draft Program EIR when ~o mt~ch vital informaLion In the Land Use
E~emenL is not inc]~~ded? The missing information is necessary for
the "project description" and for evaluation of the "whole of the
project" and its impacts. (CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15378(a)(1).) How
can the public evaluate the potential impacts of the General Plan
Update including changed land use designations and changed
locations of land use designations when the listed Urban Area Plans
and Community Area Plans and their maps have not yet been completed
and distributed for public review1 and worse, apparently will not
be available until the deadline date for public comment?
With the details of important Urban Area and Community Area
plaA5 and maps missing from the draft General Plan Update
distributed for public review, how then can the Draft Program EIR
achieve the stated purposes of evaluating the `1proposed General
Plan1s effects on the environment" (DEI~, I-i)? If as Ms. Stepner
stated the maps are not yet complete for the missing area plans, it
follows that the DEIR and draft General Plan Update cannot provide
needed portions of the General Plan for review until after the
deadline date. Nor would it be possible for the DEIR to adequately
or accurately provide a legally adequate "environmental assessment
778 for the design and review of future development." (D~IR, p.1-i.)
How can the public be expected to comment in any meanIngful
way on a DEJR based on an incomplete project description? Without
knowing the proposed land use designations, how is it possible to
adequately analyze and evaluate the adeqt~acy of existing
infrastr~~cture, needed infrastructure and the growth inducing
impacts of the land use designations on both the infrastructure and
the environment? The kind of piecemealing of environmental review
created by withholding of detailed descriptions and maps of major
portions of the Land Use Element is not acceptable under CEQA.
Additionally, it is my ~~nderstanding that the Housing Element
adopted by the Board of Supervisors on 10/23/90 was not accepted by
the State. Indeed, that is why the Agenda for the 1/23/92 Ad~Hoc
Advisory Committee included "6. Review of Draft sousing Plan." If
State approval had been granted there would have been no reason for
the Ad Hoc Committee to spend time reviewing another draft Housing
Plan just 15 months after the adoption of a Housing Plan/Element by
the ~o~rd of Supervisors. Even if the State had accepted the
Ho~~sing E]ement adopted by The Board of Si~pervisors in 1990, It is
~inlike]y that such a Housing Element (with its 1989-1994 time
frame) would be consistent with the information included in the
still missing Urban Area and Community Area Plans.
Consequently, I am formally requesting that: (a) the time
clock stop running on the DEIR public review period; (b) the
~ missing Proposed Land Use Plan Map and the missing 12 Urban Area
Plans and the missing 2 Community Area Plans described as Land Use
E]ement Appendix A be distributed for public review; (c) any
PAGE 278 Show Image
necess:~ry changes be made in the DEIR and other Plan E]ements to
reflect the text and maps of the missing Area Plans; (d) the
updated revised Ho'~sing Element be released for public review; and
(e) then and only then should the timeclock start running for the
full period of public review required by law; or as an alternative,
(e) an additional 45 days be provided ~or public comment after the
779 release for public distrib~ition of the updated Housing Element and
missing portions of the Land Use Element. CEQA Guidelines Sec.
15105(a) provides for a public comment period of up to 90 days, or
longer in 1~unusual circtimstances". Surely the failure to circulate
text and maps of the Urban Area Plans and Community Area Plans
qualify as untisual circumstances~' which j~istify the extension of
comment period to provide adequate public review.
The comment~ I have on both the Draft General Plan Update and
the Draft Program ETR. on that Plan Update are many and substantial1
but the CEQA ptocess as it now stands is fatally flawed. The
preparation of a legally adequate General Plan and the preparation
of a Program EI~ that will serve its intended future purposes (CEQA
Guidelines Sec. *15168(c)(.5)) is in the best interests of all the
people of the County. It requires the CounLy's best efforts, not
a rush job which may backfire because of careless omissions and the
failure of the County to proceed in the manner required by law.
Unless these discrepancies are remedied, it would appear that the
[3oard would be acting in ultra vires to approve any resulting
Program EIR and General Plan Update.
Tho
My apologies for not catching these omissions earlier1 but it
is the responsibility of the consultant and the Planning Department
to ensure the completeness and adequacy of the documents before
their public release for the formal timed comment period. CEQA
Guidelines Sec. 15084(e) requires that:
Before using a draft prepared by another person, the Lead
Agency shall subject the draft to the agency's own review
and aiialysis. The draft EI~ which is sent out for public
review must reflect the independent judgement of the Lead
Agency. The Lead Agency is responsible for the adequacy
and objectivity of the draft EJ~. (CEQA Guidelines Sec.
15084(e).)
Once again, I appreciate the opportunity to share my concerns
about the General Plan Update and the CEQA review process. I would
appreciate your earliest response, and will try to reach you be
phone as 500n &~ possible.
cc:
Wayne Van De Graaff, Chairman1 Board of Supervisors
BLIAtI i~3UU~1P.~ ~J1I.~I1l L~~iL TUIII Fi 1~Q DuuiiUj Cuuiiuul
H8rry Orfanos1 public Works Jim Watkins1 BLM
Larry Silver, S C Legal Defense Fund Nick Ervin1 Sierra Club
Bob Filler, Arid Operations
PAGE 279 Show Image
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PAGE 280 Show Image
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - March 1, 1993
1. This change has been made in the Final EIR as requested.
2. The southern area of the Salton Sea is recognized as a USFWS National Wildlife Refuge and
has been placed in the Recreation/Open Space category because of the mixed recreational and
open space uses of the Salton Sea. However, to ensure preservation of this area as a wildlife
refuge, the Open Space/Recreation Standards of the Land Use Element have been revised to
reflect that National Wildlife Refuges will be preserved by the General Plan for biological
sensitivities. To give the County the option of depicting the area in question as
Government/Special Public, the Increased Agriculture Alternative Plan has been revised to
designate this area as such.
3. Comment noted. In response to Comment 20, the discussion of sensitive birds as been
revised in the Final EIR to read as follows: "Agricultural areas in the County provide
important habitat for species such as the sandhill crane, which utilizes wetland roosting areas
between Brawley and Imperial (including portions of the Mesquite Lake SPA) and forages
throughout the Valley." The General Plan Update and DEIR require that site specific
environmental studies be conducted prior to development of each SPA. A mitigation measure
has been added to the Biology section of the Final EIR requiring that the environmental
studies conducted for each SPA include a biological study conducted by a qualified biologist,
and that a Notice of Preparation be sent to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau
of Land Management.
4. The name "U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service" has been corrected in the Final EIR, and the
suggested phrase, "The USFWS is currently conducting studies of the pesticide DDT and its
metabolites on piscivorous birds" has been added.
5. Comment noted.
6. Comment noted.
7. Page 111-52 of the DEIR is devoted to agricultural impacts. Please see responses to
Comments 3 and 20 regarding potential impacts to the sandhill crane roosts located within
the Mesquite Lake SPA.
8. Suitable off-site replacement land for agricultural land impacted by the Interstate 8/SR-i 11
SPA could include either currently undeveloped land or land that is no longer cultivated. In
any case, any proposed replacement land would be subject to environmental review as a
condition of approval of a Specific Plan. This project-level review would identify the precise
impacts to agricultural land and would recommend mitigation measures that, in themselves,
do not result in significant environmental impacts.
9. Please see response to Comment 8 in regard to the environmental review process associated
with mitigating impacts to agricultural production the Tamarack Canyon and Bravo Ranch
SPAs.
I
PAGE 281 Show Image
10. The text has been revised in the Final EIR to reflect that sedge, cattails, rush, and buirushes
are located in the understory.
11. This change has been made in the Final EIR as requested.
12. This change has been made in the Final EIR as requested.
13. These changes have been made in the Final EIR as requested.
14. These changes have been made in the Final EIR as requested.
15. These changes have been made in the Final EIR as requested.
16. Figure 11 in the DEIR has been revised in the Final EIR as Figures ha, lib, and lic for
increased clarification of the locations of Sensitive Plants, Sensitive Wildlife Areas, and
Unusual Plant Assemblages, respectively. Revisions to these figures also incorporate input
received from BLM (see Comment 67). Consultation with BLM also resulted in the
expansion of desert tortoise habitat. The legend for Figure 1 lb has been revised to indicate
that locations of the flat-tailed horned lizard habitat is provided in Figure 13. The delineation
of flat-tailed horned lizard in Figure 13 meets the approval of BLM.
17. All input provided on Table 14 has been incorporated into the Final EIR.
18. These changes have been made in the Final EIR as requested.
19. The following phrase has been added to the second paragraph under "Amphibians and
Reptiles": The USFWS is currently preparing a listing package for the flat-tailed horned
lizard which will be listed as a threatened or endangered species."
20. The recommended language regarding the sandhill crane has been incorporated into the Final
EIR, and a mitigation measure requiring biological studies of all SPAs has been added.
Please see response to Comment 3.
21. Commentnoted.
22. This change has been made in the Final EIR as requested.
23. This change has been made in the Final EIR as requested.
24. Crayfish has been deleted from the Final EIR.
25. This change has been made in the Final EIR as requested.
26. Please see responses to Comments 3 and 20.
2
PAGE 282 Show Image
27. The following discussion has been added to the discussion on "Agriculture/Pesticide
Spraying": "Although research is not yet available to demonstrate the effects of pesticide
spraying on insectivorous species such as birds and bats, some wildlife species are no doubt
affected. For example, burrowing owls are known to have died after consuming earwigs and
other insects that had been sprayed with pesticides."
28. The following statement has been added to the discussion on "Roads and Power Transmission
Lines": "In addition, powerlines contribute to bird mortality through electrocution and,
particularly where constructed across wetland habitats, by birds striking the wires at night."
29. The first sentence of the second paragraph on the discussion of "Off-Highway Vehicles" has
been revised as follows: "Direct evidence of injury or death to desert reptiles and other
wildlife due to crushing and harassment by OHV activities has also been documented by
researchers."
30. Comment noted. The text has been revised as follows: "The USFWS is currently studying
this problem and has completed the Drainwater Study, which includes an analysis of levels
of DDE (a DDT metabolite) and its effect on piscivorous birds, and the Caiifornia Regional
Water Ouality Control Board is focusing on efforts to control toxic compounds detected in
agricultural drains in the Vailey."
31. The following statement has been inserted in the first paragraph on the discussion of "Off-
Highway Vehicles": "Extension of the Ocotillo Wells State Vehicle Recreation Area into
flat-tailed horned lizard habitat may require formal consultation with the USFWS
Enhancement Field Office in Carlsbad pending listing of this species."
32. The following discussion has been added to the first paragraph under "Mining": "However,
impacts to the desert tortoise from mining include habitat loss and the direct loss of
individuais. Each mining project is evaiuated individuaily and requires a Section 7
consultation with the USFWS and habitat compensation for residual impacts due to habitat
loss. Such compensation, negotiated with the BLM, typically involves off-site mitigation
whereby one acre of good desert tortoise habitat is purchased by the project proponent and
turned over for protection by the BLM for each acre of poor habitat that is lost, or three to
four acres of good habitat are used as compensation for each acre of good or moderate
habitat that is lost."
The following discussion has been added to the second paragraph under "Mining": "Cyanide
leaching ponds represent potential threats to migratory birds. A variety of mitigation
measures are designed and implemented on a project-specific level to minimize impacts to
birds. These mitigation measures include hazing, the use of nets and covers over ponds,
artificial raptor calls, and other means. Projects are monitored by the BLM and mitigation
measures are redesigned or added as required."
33. It is expected that the developer or project proponent would pay for the biological study
prepared by a qualified biologist. As indicated in the EIR, site specific biology reports shall
be "submitted to the County Planning Department and relevant resource agencies for review
3
PAGE 283 Show Image
and approval."
34. Comment noted.
35. Although mining operations are commoflly associated with visual impacts, theseoperations
are generally located in isolated areas frequented by few observers and, as such, these
impacts are not considered as significant. However, the approval of new mining permits
would be subject to environmental review which may include the analysis of impacts to visual
resources.
36. The statement in question has been revised as follows: "Although toxic effects of selenium,
such as abnormalities in wildlife, have not been detected at the Salton Sea, studies of this
issue have not, to date, been completed. N
37. The following has been added to the Final EIR as the second paragraph under
"Environmental ImpactsN: "Overall drainage quantity is not expected to change with
increased urban development. Although annual urban land water use is one to three acre-feet
per acre, and water use on agricultural land in the Imperial Valley averages five to six acre-
feet per acre, a high proportion of the water used on agricultural land is absorbed by the soil
and evaporates rather than drain as runoff. Furthermore, although the water discharged from
urban uses would be of a higher quality in terms of discharges of salt, selenium, fertilizer,
and pesticide residues than that discharged from agricultural uses, overall discharge
characteristics would change little since the amount of urban area that may be developed
under the General Plan Update would remain relatively minor in comparison with the area
used for agriculture."
38. Comment noted.
39. The currently undeveloped land discussed in this paragraph refers to lands adjacent to urban
centers proposed as Urban Areas; none are currently under BLM ownership.
40. The conversion of agricultural to urban uses is not expected to significantly alter the overall
quantity and quality of drainage water. Please see response to Comment 37.
41. Small portions of land in the East Mesa area are privately owned. The following sentence
has been added to the discussion referred to by the comment: "In addition, any projects that
would affect flat-talled horned lizard habitat would require formal consultation with the
USFWS since the lizard is now a candidate for listing."
42. Differences of the Agricultural designation between the 1973 Plan and the General Plan
Update are presented on pages 111-16 and 111-54 of the DEIR. No previously designated
preservation lands are proposed for agriculture except those located within currently farmed
areas.
43. The scientific name spellings have been cofTected in the Final EIR as requested. As
indicated in the introduction to Appendix D, the native plant and animal species listed in the
4
PAGE 284 Show Image
appendix is intended to be a representative, not exhaustive, list of the organisms in the
planning area. However, the list will be augmented with any particular species that may be
requested by USFWS or other resource agency.
44. The reptile list has been amended to include those species mentioned in Comment 13.
45. Please see response to Comment 13.
Bureau or Land Management - March 18, 1993
46. The General Plan Update does not assume that there have been no changes in the law since
1973. On the contrary, the General Plan attempts to create logical land use programs that
are compatible with neighboring agencies' goals and objectives that continue to evolve. The
General Plan Update proposed to designate as Agriculture only those areas currently with
agricultural use or designated as Important Farmland by the State of California, Department
of Conservation. East and West Mesas are designated for either Recreation/Open Space,
Govenirnent/Special Public or Community Areas. These land designations have limitations
on agricultural development. Specifically, if a property is designated or adjacent to an Area
of Critical Environmental Concern then agriculture is not allowed. Any projects that would
threaten sensitive species that are federally listed as threatened or endangered would require
formal consultation with USFWS.
47. This comment refers to the Summary section of the EIR, which summarizes the more
detailed discussions of impacts and mitigations presented in the Environmental Analysis
section. As indicated in the Environmental Analysis section under "Other Impacts" sage III-
66 of the DEIR), the widening of existing roadways and construction of new roadways may
contain the potential for adverse impacts to biological resources, cultural resources, visual
resources, agriculture, hydrology, noise, and alr quality. These impacts are project-
dependent and would be evaluated in the environmental review conducted at the project level.
48. This comment refers to the Summary section of the EIR. As indicated on page 111-126 of
the DEIR, potential indirect impacts from human activities associated with urban and
recreational development projects include impacts from hikers and equestrians. As indicated
in the Mitigation Measures section, site-specific measures may be required of fliture
development proposals as mitigation for potential impacts to significant biological resources
that could result from their implementation. The overall magnitude of biological impacts that
would occur under each alternative, relative to the Proposed Project, is presented in the
Alternatives analysis section.
49. This comment refers to the Summary section of the EIR. Impacts from "Off-Highway
Vehicles" are described on page 111-129 of the DEIR. The overall magnitude of biological
impacts that would occur under each alternative, relative to the Proposed Project, is presented
in the Alternatives analysis section.
5
PAGE 285 Show Image
50. This change has been made as requested in the Final EIR and General Plan Update.
51. This comment refers to the Summary section of the EIR. Detailed mitigation measures are
provided on pages 111-172 to 111-175 of the DEIR.
52. This comment refers to the Summary section of the EIR. As indicated in the Mitigation
Measures section of impacts to biological resources sage 111-132 of the DEIR), "projects
within or in the vicinity of a resource area, as shown on Figure 14, shall be designed to
minimize adverse impacts on the biological resources it was created to protect." In addition,
the development of proposed recharge facilities would be subject to environmental review.
53. The Increased Agriculture Alternative assumes that the private lands held in East Mesa could
be avallable for agriculture and that portions of public lands could be made avallable to
private parties through land exchanges or leases. Based on discussions with BI-M, portions
of East Mesa could be made avallable for land exchange or lease if it can be demonstrated
that no significant impacts would occur to threatened or endangered biological resources or
sensitive cultural resources. The proposed Recreation/Open Space designation for East Mesa
reflects existing BLM plans for the area. East Mesa is also designated Agriculture in this
alternative due to its potential to receive water from the Imperial Irrigation District.
54. Comment noted. The source of this figure is the Imperial County College Museum, and the
map is included in the EIR to illustrate the general vicinity of Imperial County.
Nevertheless, the parachute testing area has been removed from the Final EIR.
55. Comment noted. The source of this figure is the Imperial County College Museum, and the
map is included in the EIR to illustrate the general vicinity of Imperial County.
Nevertheless, the San Felipe Townsite has been removed from the Final EIR.
56. The Housing Element is not part of the proposed General Plan Update due to its previous
review and adoption by the Board of Supervisors in 1990. Although Housing Element
information was utilized in the General Plan Update, it is standard practice to update only
those Elements which are substantially out of date. A period of five years or more represents
a substantial period.
57. This change has been made as requested in the Final EIR and General Plan Update.
58. The EIR adequately identifies the reduction of land designated as Agriculture that would
occur under the proposed General Plan Update.
59. The County of Imperial is dedicated to working with the BLM on management of all areas
subject to the California Desert Plan. Consequently, the Recreation/Open Space designation
was created with specific requirements to reflect values of Areas of Critical Environmental
Concern. The statements on page 111-17 are not inaccurate, but reflect the recognition that
the County looks to BLM for natural and cultural resource management where adjoining
jurisdiction may occur.
6
PAGE 286 Show Image
60. The boundaries of the military reservations identified in the EIR reflect the most up-todate
information available at the County Planning Department.
61. These changes have been made as requested in the Final EIR and General Plan Update.
62. Regardless of the current actual uses or ownership of lands in East Mesa, the EIR is correct
is stating that a reduction of land designated as Agriculture would occur under the proposed
General Plan Update by redesignating the East Mesa area as Recreation/Open Space. This
change in designation for this area represents an attempt to be more consistent with BI-M
designations.
63. The impacts of noise by OHY activities on wildlife are addressed on page 111-129 of the
- DEIR.
64. This change has been made as requested in the Final EIR.
65. This comment presumably refers to paragraph 4 of page 111-88 rather than paragraph 4 of
page III-87~ The following sentence has been added to the discussion of the Jacumba
Mountains in both the Final EIR and General Plan: "Natural California fan palms are also
found in the Jacumba Mountains."
66. The Pinyon-Juniper & Mixed Chaparral habitat area in Figure 10 has been revised in the
Final EIR as requested. The various sources from which the Biological Resources section
of the EIR has been compiled are identified on page 111-83. In many instances, the
boundaries of a given sensitive area were identified from multiple sources and it would not
be feasible to reconstruct the precise input received from all sources on all sensitive areas.
The goal of the EIR is to identi~ the sensitive area boundaries as accurately as possible; this
goal has been achieved by soliciting input during both preparation and public review
circulation of the DEIR.
67. The habitat boundaries and name changes have been made in the Final EIR as requested.
Please also see response to Comment 16 regarding revisions to Figure 11.
68. The last sentence of the first paragraph under "Habitats" has been revised to include "(see
Figure 10)".
69. The following text has been added to the discussion of "Special Area Designations" on page
111-118 of the Final EIR: "Another biological resource area in Imperial County is the
Colorado River Herd Management Area located in the northeastern portion of the County.
The Colorado River Herd Management Area Plan is the result of the Wild Horse and Burro
Act, passed by Congress in 1971, providing the basis for the management of wild horses and
burros by the Bureau of I~nd Management. The Plan states that: "...the Secretary of the
Interior shall manage wild free-roaming horses and burros in a manner that is designed to
achieve and maintain a thriving natural ecological balance on public lands." The Act also
provides for the inventory, study, and removal (if necessary) of wild horses and burros."
7
PAGE 287 Show Image
70. This change has been made in the Final EIR as requested.
71. This information is accurate. The 2,200-acre marsh habitat is located on the south end of
the Salton Sea near the USFWS headquarters.
72. The various mitigation measures referred to by this comment are project-level measures that
should be adopted, where applicable, by ft~ture development projects. CEQA allows for the
development of a PEIR for broad-level planning program such as a General Plan. Mitigation
measures within PEIRs do not need to be specific in nature, but may provide for mitigation
programs that can be implemented at a project level. Under CEQA, Program EIRs usually
lead to project-level EIRs where substantive mitigation measures are required.
73.~ This change has been made in the Final EIR and General Plan as requested.
74. This change has been made in the Final EIR and General Plan as requested.
75. Comment noted. The EIR adequately indicates that these areas contain sensitive resources.
Some portions of these areas contain very sensitive resources; others contain moderately to
lightly sensitive resources. As stated on pages 111-147 to 111-148 of the DEIR, significant
impacts to prehistoric cultural resources could occur in any area identified as sensitive and
it is recommended that a cultural resource study by conducted for any project proposed in
a sensitive area.
76. The following statement has been inserted in the discussion on the Anna Trall: "The Anza
Trall has since become formally recognized to be of national significance by an Act of
Congress that dedicated the Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trall."
77. The 1973 General Plan contains a Conservation Element and a Open Space Element, and
both elements address cultural resources. The phrase 11the Conservation and Open Space
Element of the 1973 General Plan" on page 147 of the DEIR has been connected to read "the
Conservation and Open Space Elements of the 1973 General Plan."
78. This change has been made in the Final EIR as requested.
79. The last sentence of this paragraph has been revised as follows: The Bureau of Land
Management also provides parking pads, pit toilets, and trash dumpsters along Grays Well
Road at the Buttercup Camping Area, the Midway Camping area, and adjacent to the Plank
Road, and provides dry camping primitive sites in the Yuha Desert and other locations in
Imperial County."
80. Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update is not expected to result in significant
impacts of sewage treatment in rural residential areas or in recreation/open space areas. No
change to the Final EIR is proposed. The densities proposed in the General Plan for the
Recreation/Open Space and Rural Residential designations will not require sewage treatment
systems but will operate on septic Systems.
8
PAGE 288 Show Image
81. The EIR is not intended to imply that the California Highway Conirnission assumed
responsibility for the Plank Road after it was constructed. However, the second sentence of
this paragraph has been revised as follows: "In 1916, the California Highway Commission,
which assumed responsibility for the trans dunes highway in June 1915, built an improved
plank road." The source of this information is the article, "Walking The Plank" in the
magazine Auto Club News (November-December 1992; page 2).
82. The phase "and El Picacho itself," has been removed from the Final EIR.
83. Section J addresses non-point sources of water pollution on page 111-197 of the DEIR.
Included among the numerous sources of contamination in the surrounding area of the canal
system are storm water runoff, septic tanks, aerial pesticide applications, wild and domestic
animals, and hundreds of miles of roads.
84. As indicated in the last paragraph on page 111-216 of the DEIR, "the amount of grading
required for fliture development is unknown at this stage of the planning process." The
impacts of grading on the removal of natural habitat and vegetation will be addressed by
biological studies conducted at the project level for fliture development projects.
85. Comment noted. The word "highest" has been removed from the Final EIR for sake of
clarification.
86. The Increased Agriculture Alterative is realistic for a long range plan for the County if they
wish to prioritize agriculture above other material or cultural resources. The status of
Federal lands change regularly and this designation simply states that if the land is withdrawn
from public or military land it will be encouraged to put into agricultural uses.
87. The EIR adequately illustrates the locations of areas designated as Government/Special
Public, which is the designation that includes military areas. Military facilities are also
indicated in Figure 6 of the Land Use Element. Neither the General Plan Update or the EIR
propose to convert military target areas to agricultural lands or to allow agricultural uses on
public lands in areas designated Government/Special Public.
88. This comment refers to a discussion devoted to agricultural impacts.
89. The proposed plan is to maximize the Recreation/Open Space designation on public lands
with the BLM California Desert Conservation Area Plans. This designation was designed
to be consistent with BLM goals.
90. This sentence has been corrected in the Final EIR to read "virtually identical."
91. The No Project Alternative adequately analyzes impacts that would occur under the existing
plan from existing conditions. Please see the discussion of Biological Resources on page IX-
24 of the DEIR.
92. Comment noted.
9
PAGE 289 Show Image
California Department of Transportation March S, 1993
93. As a program-level EIR, this EIR examines the overall effects of the proposed General Plan
Update; it would not be practical to analyze impacts on a project-specific level. As indicated
on page 111-62 of the DEIR, the proposed Circulation and Scenic Highways Element was
designed to accommodate projected traffic growth in Imperial County through the year 2015.
Factors taken into consideration in forecasting traffic volumes on fliture roadways include
trend line analysis, ftiture population projections, Caltrans projections and manual assignment
of approved projects and land use decisions. Regarding cumulative impacts, two State
highway segments within the County are projected to operate at LOS D; these are Interstate
8 between Fourth Street and State Route 111, and State Route 86 between Heber and
Dogwood Roads (`)EIR, p. V-3). Impacts at these locations would continue until appropriate
interchange improvements are conducted by Caltrans. It should be noted that all proposed
development projects that would increase traffic in Imperial County will undergo
environmental review at the project-specific level to determine whether they are in
conformance with the updated Circulation and Scenic Highways Element.
94. Comment noted.
95. Comment noted.
96. The illustration of State Route 7 as a curved alignment is conceptual in nature. One reason
it is not aligned due north is the presence of Heber Dunes County Park between State Route
98 and Interstate 8. In any case, the alignment has not yet been selected; five alternative
routes have been proposed in the Dr~ Calexico East Border Station and State Route 7
Between the New Port of Entiy and State Route 98 FIRIEIS environmental Science
Associates, Inc., February 26, 1993) and are currently undergoing environmental review.
97. Comment noted.
98. The "Brawley Bypas5" is shown on Figure 1 of the Circulation Element and discussion has
been added to page 6 of the Circulation Element.
99. SR-7 is addressed on page 111-58 of the DEIR under "State Route 98", on page 111-66 under
"Other Impacts," and in the Traffic Report (Appendix C). The following statement has been
added to page 111-23 of the Final EIR under "East Border Crossing": "Caltrans is proposing
to construct SR-7 between the new POE and SR-98. This segment of SR-7, which will
involve a right~f-way of approximately 60 acres, is tentatively scheduled to coincide with
the opening of the POE in early 1995. Caltrans has proposed several alternatives for this
segment of SR-7 which are currently undergoing environmental review; SR-7 is described
in the California Streets and Highways Code as eventually extending to Interstate 8."
100. SR-7 is listed in Table 4 and is shown as Orchard Road in Table 3 in the Traffic Report
(Appendix C).
10
PAGE 290 Show Image
101. The following statement has been added to the General Plan Update and to the
Traffic/Circulation mitigation section of the Final EIR: "Developers will be required to
dedicate right of way needed for State highway improvements before a subdivision or the
development of property adjacent to or straddling an existing or fliture State highway is
approved."
California Integrated Waste Management Board - February 25, 1993
102. Comment noted.
103. Waste diversion programs are beyond the scope of the General plan and need to be addressed
in the County Integrated Waste Management Plan.
California Regional Water Ouality Control Board - February 25, 1993
104. Section S-Il of the EIR is a Summary section; additional information on impacts to water
quality, including groundwater quality, is provided in Section III-J. As indicated on page III-
202 of the DEIR, groundwater quality in the Imperial Valley region is generally poor,
although isolated aquifers of good quality groundwater do occur. Groundwater resources m
the Imperial hydrographic subunit are generally unsuitable for domestic consumption under
Federal and State drinking water standards. Poor groundwater quality is attributable to the
infiltration of agricultural runoff and the presence of subsurface salt deposits associated with
periods of flooding, evaporation, and subsequent deposition. The DEIR also indicates that
no impacts to groundwater quality, other than those associated with geothermal power plants,
are anticipated as a result of the implementation of the General Plan. This is due primarily
to the fact that the General Plan Update proposes less acres for agricultural use than does the
1973 General Plan. In addition, as stated in the EIR, the development of new industrial uses
will require a review of the proposed use by the State Regional Water Quality Control Board
and other agencies to determine if additional mitigation measures will be needed. These
mitigation measures cannot be identified at this time in a program-level EIR since the exact
types of use are unknown and cannot be anticipated. However, permits will need to be
obtained from concerned agencies such as the State Regional Water Quality Control Board
and the Environmental Protection Agency. Please also see response to Comment 37. A
complete study of Imperial County groundwater is being conducted by James M.
Montgomery Engineers, Inc., and is scheduled to be completed later this year.
105. Storm water runoff is discussed in Section lII-L of the DEIR, and, on page V~, it is stated
that 1) urban runoff, particularly from industrial uses, contributes significantly to water
quality degradation in the region (see "J. Water Quality"), and 2) as future development
proceeds within the region, the incremental increase in impervious surfaces is expected to
result in potentially significant cumulative impacts with respect to the increased urban runoff
volumes and flows and degradation of surface and groundwater quantity and quality (see "L.
Flood Control/Hydrology"). As indicated in response to Comment 57, it is not feasible in
this program-level EIR to analyze future impacts to surface water and groundwater from
11
PAGE 291 Show Image
111. Comment noted. Please see response to the next comment.
112. The following paragraph has been added to the discussion of "Well Water" in the "Flood
Control/Hydrology" section of the Final EIR:
The Supreme Court has set forth that "Consumptive use from the mainstream within a state
shall include all consumptive uses of water within the mainstream, including water drawn
from the mainstream by underground pumping... N Any such withdrawal of groundwater
along the river is considered to be pumping mainstream water and requires a contract with
the Secretary of the Interior. Those using Colorado River water without a contract or whose
contract entitlement is insufficient may currently be eligible to participate in the Lower
Colorado Water Supply Project and thereby have an opportunity to receive exchange water.
113. This change has been made in the Final EIR as requested.
114. This change has been made in the Final EIR as requested.
115. This change has been made in the Final EIR as requested.
116. This change has been made in the Final EIR as requested.
117. The TDS value for 4/27/90 has been corrected as 42,236.
118. These corrections have been made in the Final EIR.
119. The first sentence of this paragraph has been revised as follows: Annual groundwater
recharge in the Valley is estimated at about 400,000 acre-feet, although most of the recharge
may be to shallow aquifers and subsequently lost to the Valley's extensive drainage system."
120. The source of this information, which has been added to the Final EIR, is the County of
Imperial 1985 General Plan Overview.
121. Commentnoted.
122. These changes have been made in the Final EIR as requested.
123. This paragraph has been added to the Final EIR as suggested.
Imperial County Department of Public Works - March 22, 1993
124. Comment noted.
125. This comment refers to the Summary section of the EIR. Additional information on the
locations subject to landslides is provided on pages 111-217 to 111-218 of the DEIR.
13
PAGE 292 Show Image
nitrates, organics, metals, and ThS since the specific projects that could potentially generate
these materials are currently not known. Policies detailed in the Water Plan and mitigation
measures recommended under the Water Quality and Flood Control/Hydrology sections of
the EIR are expected to reduce impacts that would occur under the General Plan Update to
below a level of significance. In any case, the development of new industrial uses will
require a review of the proposed use by the State Regional Water Quality Control Board and
other agencies to determine if additional mitigation measures will be needed, and permits will
need to be obtained from concerned agencies such as the State Regional Water Quality
Control Board and the Environmental Protection Agency.
With regard to the impact of water conservation measures on the Salton Sea and drainages,
the DEIR states on page 111-199 that any reduction in the water flowing to the Salton Sea
causes a rise in the salinity of the water since the salt becomes more and more concentrated.
This issue is elaborated in detail on pp.11146 to 11147 under the discussion of agricultural
production.
Regarding the use of treated wastewater, a statement has been inserted in the second
paragraph of the "Environmental Impacts" discussion of the Water Quality section of the
Final EIR tilat "The re-use of treated wastewater may increase nitrate and TDS levels in
ground water and surface water dralnage."
Regarding landfills located near the New River, no new landfills are proposed near the New
River and, indeed, as stated on page III~169 of the DEIR, landfills presently near the New
River may not continue to be avallable to the County due to environmental or other
considerations. Implementation of the General Plan Update would result in new residential,
commercial, and industrial development which would result in the generation of additional
solid waste. The continued avallability of adequate solid waste disposal sites to accommodate
planned development will need to be addressed by the County Integrated Waste Management
Plan to be prepared by January 1994 sage 111-173).
106. Page 111-125 of the DEIR states that selenium concentrations in fish in the Salton Sea average
approximately 10 ppb, not 10 ppm. Information on the levels of selenium concentrations in
fish in the Salton Sea varies considerably. The point is that selenium levels have reached
high concentrations, and these concentrations exceed State advisory levels.
California River Board of California - March 16, 1993
107. Comment noted.
108. Comment noted.
109. Comment noted.
110. Cornmentnoted.
12
PAGE 293 Show Image
126. This change has been made in the Final EIR as requested.
127. Comment noted. The Urban Area designation is consistent with planning definitions that
have been historically used in Imperial County. For example, "Urban" is a designation in
the existing 1973 Plan. The term "Urban Area" is not intended to mirror its use by the
Federal government for road flinding or other purposes.
128. Public transportation is discussed on pages 111-60 to 111-61 of the DEIR. Public
transportation is also promoted and discussed in the Circulation and Scenic Highways
Element of the proposed General Plan Update.
129. Landfill operators are described on page 111-150 of the DEIR.
130. Comment noted. A traffic report containing more detailed information on public
transportation prepared by Wilidan Associates is included in the DEIR as Appendix C. This
report also served as a basis for the discussion and promotion of public transportation in the
Circulation and Scenic Highways Element of the proposed General Plan Update.
131. These changes have been made in the Final EIR as requested.
132. These changes have been made in the Final EIR as requested.
133. Comment noted.
134. Comment noted. The word "required" has been changed to "requested."
135. Comment noted.
136. Figure 18 has been revised to include the location of the proposed Mesquite Regional
Landfill, and to distinguish existing from proposed landfills.
137. The statement in the EIR is regarded as accurate.
138. Comment noted.
139. The Imperial Irrigation District has reviewed and commented on the DEIR.
140. This change has been made in the Final EIR as requested.
141. This change has been made in the Final EIR as requested.
142. Comment noted. The January 21, 1993 Traffic Report prepared by Wilidan Associates was
not available when the DEIR was circulated for public review.
143. Comment noted. All effort has been made to improve the quality and integrity of the EIR.
14
PAGE 294 Show Image
Imperial Irrigation District - March 22, 1993
144. Comment noted.
145. Comment noted. The sources of the data in Table 5 are the In~perial c()wuy Agricultural
Crop and Livestock Reports prepared by the Imperial County Agricultural Commissioner.
It is recognized that the Ill) farmed acreage is smaller that the County-wide farmed acreage
since, in part, the total area harvested in the County also includes land irrigated by the Palo
Verde Irrigation District, the Bard Irrigation District, and other resources. No changes to
the EIR regarding harvested acres are proposed.
146. Comment noted. Continued reduction of Important Fanniand to urban uses may ultimately
result in higher costs to all users. Although this economic issue is not explored in the EIR,
the issue has been extensively discussed through the General Plan process.
147. The following statement has been added to the Traffic/Circulation mitigation measures section
in the Final EIR: "New roadway and roadway improvement plans shall also be coordinated
with the Imperial Irrigation District to assure efficient compatibility with current and fliture
water and power plans."
148. Comment noted.
149. "Waterways" has been changed to "surface dralnage water" on page S-7 of the Final EIR.
150. The following phrase has been added to this section of the Final EIR as requested: "although
discharge of total petroleum hydrocarbons (stormwater discharge) will increase."
151. This change has been made in the Final EIR as requested.
152. Figure 5 has been revised in the Final EIR as requested.
153. As requested, the following mitigation has been added to the Final EIR: "In addition,
communities/developers are required to flind pipeline/canal/draln modifications to
accommodate urban developments.
154. Please see response to Comment 146.
155. "Threefold" has been changed to "twofold" in the Final EIR.
156. "180" has been changed to "260" in the Final EIR.
157. This statement has been added to the Final EIR as requested.
158. This statement has been added to the Final EIR as requested.
159. This change has been made in the Final EIR as requested.
15
PAGE 295 Show Image
160. This change has been made in the Final EIR as requested.
161. This change has been made in the Final EIR as requested.
162. This change has been made in the Final EIR as requested.
163. This change has been made in the Final EIR as requested.
164. This change has been made in the Final EIR as requested.
165. This change has been made in the Final EIR as requested.
166w Comment noted.
167. This change has been made in the Final EIR as requested.
168. This change has been made in the Final EIR as requested.
169. Comment noted.
170. Please see comment 122 and associated response.
171. This change has been made in the Final EIR as requested.
172. Comment noted. It is anticipated that additional agricultural land would become new
irrigated land only as mitigation to replace the loss of existing irrigated land.
Metropolitan Water District or Southern Calirornia - Mardi 22, 1993
173. The first paragraph on page 111-13 of the DEIR includes a generalized description of the
anticipated land uses in the Recreation/Open Space designation. The discussion of recharge
was included to emphasize the open space preservation focus of that land use. However, the
possible Bureau of Reclamation project of recharging surplus flows of the Colorado River
into East Mesa would also be in conformance with that land use designation.
174. It is anticipated that lakes at the Tamarack Canyon Ranch Specific Plan Area would be
modelled after the Rio Bend Lake and Drew I-ake located at Rio Bend. The source of water
for these lakes is canal water that was ordered, but not used, for upstream irrigation. The
water is diverted into the lakes rather than draining into the New River. The untreated three-
acre Drew Lake is used for storage prior to being treated for drinking water by an on-site
treatment facility. The untreated water in these lakes is also used for fire protection,
recreational, and irrigation purposes.
The following paragraph has been added to the discussion of the Imperial Irrigation District
(under "Water Delivery and Supply") in the Public Services/Safety section of the Final EIR:
16
PAGE 296 Show Image
Water diverted by ID under its Colorado River Water Delivery Contract may be
used for potable/domestic and irrigation purposes. Section 17 of the Contract
provides that water shall be delivered as ordered by the District "and as reasonably
required for potable and irrigation purposes." This section further provides that the
Contract is for permanent service and that the dam and reservoir shall be used "for
irrigation and domestic uses in satisfaction of present perfected rights." Article 29
of the Contract specifically provides that "all rights based upon this Contract shall be
subject to and controlled by the Colorado River compact." The 1964 Decree in
Arizona v. California provides that the United States is enjoined from operating the
dam other than "(1) for river regulation, improvement or navigation, and flood
control; (2) for irrigation and domestic uses, including the satisfaction of present
perfected rights; and (3) for power." The term "domestic use" is defmed in the
Colorado River Compact, the foundational document for "the I-aw of the River," as
follows: "The term `domestic use' shall include the use of water for household,
stock, municipal, mining, milling, industrial, or other life purposes....
175. "Palo Verde Weir" has been changed to "Palo Verde Diversion Dam" in the Final EIR, and
"2.6 million acre-feet" has been changed to "2.9 million acre-feet" throughout both the Final
EIR and General Plan.
176. Comment noted. Data and information are not available to support this suggested change.
177. Figures 12 and 13 have been revised to claris that the "Algodones Dunes" are not
"mountains."
178. Comment noted.
179. This error has been corrected in the Final EIR.
180. Comment noted. "CPS" is defined in the introduction to the Biological Resources section
as California Parks Service.
181. Corn~nent noted. Factors such as water availability and the use of native vegetation for
mitigation measures requiring revegetation will be considered in the preparation of project-
level EIRs.
182. This change as been made in the Final EIR as requested.
183. This change as been made in the Final EIR as requested.
184. This paragraph has been revised in the Final EIR as follows:
By treaty signed on February 3, 1944, Mexico is entitled to 1.5 MAF of Colorado
River water each year. The Colorado River Compact anticipated the recognition of
Mexico's rights to Colorado River water by the United States and specified that such
water shall be first supplied from waters unapportioned by the Colorado River
17
PAGE 297 Show Image
Compact. If unapportioned amounts should be insufficient, any shortfall shall be
borne equally by the Upper and I£wer Basin States. In years of extraordinary
drought or other disaster causing extreme low flow conditions, Mexico's entitlement
would be reduced in the same proportion as consumptive uses in the United States.
185. The order of discussion in this section has been revised as requested.
186. Reference to Figure 19 has been deleted in the Final EIR and the subsequent sentence has
been revised as follows: "The first four California priorities, which include the 1) Palo
Verde Irrigation District, 2) Yuma District, 3a) Imperial Irrigation District and Coachella
Valley Water District, 3b) Palo Verde Irrigation District, and 4) Metropolitan Water district,
total 4.4 MAF annually, of which the agricultural agencies are entitled to 3.85 MAF."
187. This change has been made in the Final EIR as requested.
188. This contract refers to a revision of the draft contract that called for extension of boundaries
of the Imperial Irrigation district to include the Coachella Valley. For clarification,
paragraphs two and three have been combined in the Final EIR.
189. The ID is addressing the issues raised in the EPA Order. Information on timeframes and
specifics is not available at this time.
190. State law encourages water conservation and transfers and has chosen to treat the transfer or
sale of conserved water as a beneficial use of that water. State law defuiing beneficial use
has not been preempted by federal law, and state law flilly authorizes the District to transfer
conserved water. Recent United States Supreme Court cases have held that state law is not
prohibited by federal law from implementing its express public policy of encouraging the
conservation of water by allowing the sale or transfer of conserved water. In California v.
United States (1973), the court disallowed any prior dictum that implied that state law did
not control the federal use of state waters where such laws were not inconsistent with
"explicit congressional provisions." cibe court was distinguishing Ivanhoe v. McCracken
and Arizona v. California.) The court concluded that "the legislative history of the
Reclamation Act of 1902 makes it abundantly clear that Congress intended to defer to
substance, as well as the form, of state water law." Although the District and other parties
to the Seven Party Agreement have entered into agreements to transfer conserved water, it
is not necessary that these agreements be mentioned in the EIR because such a transfer could
be accomplished without such agreements.
191. Please see response to Comment 190.
192. This sentence has been revised in the Final EIR as requested.
193. The relationship between the 8,400 acres and 7,462 acres has been clarified in the Final EIR.
194. Winterhaven is not an incorporated city. This paragraph has been revised as follows: "The
community of Winterhaven holds a present perfected right to divert 780 acre-feet per year
18
PAGE 298 Show Image
from the Colorado River. The present perfected right was granted by the United States
Supreme Court supplemental decree in Arizona V. California dated January 9, 1979. N
195. "90 acre-feet" has been corrected as "90,000 acre-feet" in the Final EIR.
196. This change has been made in the Final EIR as requested.
197. These changes have been made in the Final EIR as requested.
198. Please see response to Comment 163.
199. Please see response to Comment 114.
200. Please see response to Comment 115.
201. This phrase has been revised in the Final EIR as follows: "..., salinity could reach 1,000
mgIL at Imperial Dam by the year 2010."
202. This change has been made in the Final EIR as requested.
203. Untreated industrial and municipal effluent in the New River (coming from Mexico) make
it unsuitable for irrigation purposes. Two large areas of the ID (now served by the Rositas
Supply Canal and the Vail Supply Canal) were previously irrigated with Alamo River water.
These areas slowly salted up and became less productive than other areas of the ID. As a
result of the declining productivity in these two areas, two new canals were constructed to
supply fresh water for irrigation in these areas and drainage water from the Alamo River is
no longer used. The areas have subsequently become more productive as the salts in the soil
were removed. The transferability of Dr. Rhoades' study to other fields and the long-term
effects of irrigating with Alamo River water have not been determined. It should also be
noted that the fanner who was cooperating in this study is no longer using Alamo River
water to irrigate the fields that were involved in Dr. Rhoades' study. Salinity problems were
encountered on the fields. No change is proposed to the statement in the Draft EIR.
204. "Reduced" has been changed to "less concentrated" in the first paragraph referred to by this
comment.
205. The last sentence of this paragraph has been revised as follows: "The development of urban
uses would also result in lower salt and selenium concentrations being deposited into drainage
systems than is currently the case with the agricultural runoff." Please also see response to
Comment 37.
206. The first mitigation measure requires that new development "utilize measures designed to
conserve water in their construction." Such measures would include applicable State laws
and regulations.
19
PAGE 299 Show Image
207. "Palo Verde Weir" has been changed to "Palo Verde Diversion Dam" in the Final EIR.
With respect to water diversion through the All American Canal, please see response to
Comment 118.
208. These changes have been made in the Final EIR as requested.
209. This item has been revised as follows in the Final EIR: "Normally adequate water supply
to the region exists from the Colorado River conveyed by the District distribution system. N
210. Since it is very unlikely that selenium would be found in urban runoff much higher than
background levels, it has been deleted from the list of pollutants in this paragraph.
21i. Comment noted. Please see response to Comment 172.
Coachella Valley Water District - February 3, 1993
212. Comment noted. Please see response to Comment 190.
213. Comment noted. Please see response to Comment 190.
214. Reference to East Mesa is on page 111-159 of the DEIR. Most of East Mesa is in public
ownership with very limited development potential and very limited need for groundwater
extraction. If utilization of groundwater for a use permitted in the "Recreation/Open Space"
designation for East Mesa, a Conditional Use Permit would be required.
215. Please see response to Comment 167.
216. This issue is addressed under "Water Conservation and Water Transfer Programs" in the
Agricultural Element.
Southern Padflc Lines - March 22, 1993
217. These changes have been made in the Final EIR as requested.
218. This change has been made in the Final EIR as requested.
219. This change has been made in the Final EIR as requested.
220. This change has been made in the Final EIR as requested.
221. These changes have been made in the Final EIR as requested.
222. This change has been made to Figure 7A as requested.
20
PAGE 300 Show Image
223. The fourth sentence of the first paragraph of the first paragraph of "Railroad Noise" in the
Noise section has been revised as follows: "A branch of this line runs east from El Centro
along Evan Hewes Highway to Holtville and north along SR-i 15 to just south of Highway
78, although the line between Holtville and SR-78 has been shut down by the Interstate
Commerce Commission."
Southern CaIifbrnia Association of Governments (SCAG) - March 10, 1993
224. Comment noted.
225. Comment noted.
226w. Imperial County experienced an annual average population growth of 2.6% from 1980 to
1990 according to data collected from the California Department of Finance and the Southern
California Association of Governments by dC Research, Inc. in San Diego, California.
Using this average growth rate to project fliture growth, and using an estimated population
figure of 124,300 for the County as of July 1, 1992 (`)epartment of Finance), the County
would cont~n approximately 197,298 people in the year 2010. The Plan Update would
easily accommodate this population size please refer to response to Comment 230), and
promotes job opportunities in the County. Aside from commercial and industrial uses that
would be developed in Urban and Community Areas, job opportunities would be especially
encouraged through developmen of the Specific Plan Areas. In particular, the East Border
Crossing SPA, Interstate 8/SR-i ii SPA, and Mesquite Lake SPA are primarily designed for
commercial and industrial uses. The development of a resort community at the Tamarack
Canyon Ranch SPA and a regional airport at the Holtville Air Strip SPA would also result
in considerable employment opportunities. Although job opportunities would increase under
the Plan Update, it is currently not feasible to project the number of jobs by the year 2010
due to several international, national, state, and local business and economic factors.
227. Comment noted.
228. Comment noted.
229. Comment noted.
230. Based upon the number of acres designated for each land use and its concomitant population
density, it is calculated that the County would contain 627,667 residents at buildout of the
proposed Plan update (see Table below). Buildout under the Increased Agriculture
Alternative would contain 587,894 residents, and buildout under the Increased Development
Alternative would contain 758,129 residents. Whereas the Plan Update would accommodate
these numbers of individuals, it is important to note that buildout is not expected for at least
several decades. As indicated in response to Comment 226, it is calculated that the County
will contain approximately 197,298 people in the year 2010, using recent population growth
figures. In addition, the State Department of Finance predicts a population of 310,000 in the
year 2040. It should also be noted that, by adjusting the population capacities for Salton
21
PAGE 301 Show Image
City, Hot Mineral Spa, and Ocotillo/Nornirage to reflect infrastructure and resource
constraints, a more realistic buildout range of 387,000 to 517,000 individuals would reside
in the County under the proposed Plan Update or its alternatives.
Population Capacities fbr the Iniperial County Draft General Plan I
Proposed Plan Increased Ag. Increased Dey.__]
Urban Areas 449,880 415,035 545,963
Felicity SPA 7,425 7,425 7,425
T~amarack SPA 1,980 0 1,980
Bravo Ranch SPA 2,950 0 2,950
Imperial Land Co.SPA 0 0 3,630
Hot Mineral Spa 58,000 58,000 58,000
Ocotillo-Nomirage 4,700 4,700 2,300
Palo Verde 2,198 2,198 2,198
Rural Residential 18,000 18,000 53,008
Agriculture 48,544 50,114 46,686
Recreation 33,990 32,423 33,990
( Totals 1 627,667 587,894 758,129
The following notes are offered to explain certain calculations made in tire above table:
* An average multiplier of 3.3 persons per household was used countywide, based on
the State Department of Finance (1992) estimates.
* Capacities are based upon household buildout, with the exception of that for Urban
Areas which are based on persons per acre since the mix of residentiallnon-residential
land uses will be based on fliture site-specific zoning.
* According to the 1992 Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program Land Use
Conversion Report, there were 20,409 acres considered "urban build~out." The
urbanized population (all incorporated cities and the unincorporated urban areas of
Heber, Niland, Seeley, and Winterhaven) equals 117, 435, resulting in approximately
5.75 persons per acre for Urban Areas. Assuming the same density over the next 20
years, the Plan Update has the capacity for the populations given above.
22
PAGE 302 Show Image
* The estimate for the Salton City area assumes the same buildout population density
as for other Urban Areas. However, the governmental and economic infrastructure
necessary to accommodate a popUlatiofl of 183,000 for Salton City is not likely to
develop in the next 10 to 20 years, at the earliest. Growth in this area will also
depend on improved water quality conditions in the Salton Sea, which is presently
deteriorating.
* Only the residential SPAs are included in the table. The Tamarack Canyon Ranch
SPA and Bravo Ranch SPA to not have densities listed in the Plan Update but are
assumed to be approximately two dwelling units per acre.
* The Hot Mineral Spa Area 1965 General Plan predicted a population of 58,000 and
indicates a maximum potential of 77,300.
* Calculations of the Ocotillo/Nomirage Community Area are based on the countywide
multiplier of 3.3 persons per dwelling unit. A more realistic population multiplier
for this largely retirement community is 1.5 persons per dwelling unit, which yields
a reduced population of 2,143 people.
* The calculation of Palo Verde is based on a predicted buildout of 666 dwelling units.
* Rural Residential ranges from 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres to 2 dwelling units per
acre, for an average of 1.1 dwelling units per acre.
* For the Increased Agriculture Alternative, only 9,600 acres of the 163,585 acres in
East Mesa are privately held and can be developed at 1 dwelling unit per 40 acres.
* Recreation land use development standards of 1 dwelling unit per 20 acres can occur
on approximately 206,000 acres of the approximately 1,600,000 acres of land
designated as Recreation/Open Space. (For the Increased Agriculture Alternative,
privately held recreational land equals approximately 196,500 acres).
* The calculations in the table are approximations based on the best avallable
information and should be used for informational purposes only.
231. SCAG will be notified of the action taken by the County Board of Supervisors on the
proposed County of Imperial General Plan Update.
232. All mitigation measures associated with the Plan Update will be monitored in accordance with
AB 3180 requirements.
City or Brawley - March 15, 1993
233. Cornrnent noted.
23
PAGE 303 Show Image
234. Comment noted.
235. Comment noted. No change to the Urban Area is proposed.
236. Comment noted. The requested additional Urban Area east of Brawley has been added to
the Staff Recommended I~d Use Plan.
237. Comment noted. The SR-ill Corridor SPA is described in the EIR under the Increased
Development Alternative and, as such, would not be adopted under the proposed Plan
Update. The EIR also describes the Increased Development Alternative as less
environmentally acceptable that the proposed Plan Update or the Increased Agriculture
Alternative, and indicates that development of the SR-ill Corridor SPA would contribute
to significant and unmitigable impacts associated with the loss of Important Farmland in the
County. It is expected that the SR-i 11 Corridor SPA would also impact economic growth
to central and northern communities in the County.
238. It is expected that development of the SR-I ii Corridor SPA would have fiscal and economic
impacts on Brawley. Under CEQA (Section 15131), an EIR for the SR-ill Corridor SPA
would need to discuss the.potential economic and social consequences of this development
project in terms of whether it would take business away from existing downtown and other
areas and thereby cause business closures and eventual physical deterioration of shopping
areas in central and northern communities.
City o~ Calexico - March 22, 1993
239. Comment noted. The Calexico Urban Area is recommended to be expanded but not to the
extent requested by the City.
240. The Land Use Element has been revised to specify coordination with the City of Calexico
on the East Border Crossing SPA.
241. The I-and Use Element has been revised to specify coordination with the City of Calexico
on the 1-8 and Highway ill SPA.
242. Cole Road has been designated as a 4-lane Major Arterial. No change to State Highway
designation is proposed due to lack of County jurisdiction.
243. The County has no authority over rail service and, therefore, cannot grant rights to the City
of Calexico.
244. Comment noted.
245. Comment noted.
24
PAGE 304 Show Image
246. Comment noted. It is possible that the New River contains sensitive biological resources
southeast of the All American Canal.
247. It is possible that the New River contains sensitive cultural resources southeast of the All
American Canal.
City o~ Calipatria March 2, 1993
248. Comment noted.
249. Comment noted.
250. Comment noted.
251. The Recreation/Open Space category allows for the managed production of mineral
resources. It is not appropriate to speculate whether the proposed Mesquite Regional Landfill
will be approved, and therefore not reasonable to designate this proposed project area as
Special Pur~)0se Facility. Subsequent to approval of the proposed General Plan Update,
approval of the proposed Mesquite Regional Landfill would require a General Plan
Amendment to redesignate the project area as Special Purpose Facility.
252. Comment noted.
253. Comment noted.
254. Comment noted. The County has no jurisdiction over State Highways, their widths, or
alignments.
255. Comment noted. The Circulation Element includes a policy that "The County shall cooperate
with other governmental agencies to provide connection and continuation of bicycle
corridors."
256. The County supports the City of Calipatria's request that the state signalize the intersection
of Highways 111 and 115; however, the County has no jurisdiction in this matter.
257. Please see response to Comment 56. A copy of the County's Housing Element, as adopted,
will be fonvarded to the City of Calipatria's City Clerk.
City of El Centro - March 22, 1993
258. The County intends to undertake a zoning implementation within each of the Urban Areas
designated on the L~d Use Plan. The intent would be to match the land use designations
of each city general plan, to the extent feasible. This effort will be coordinated with the
cities and alternative zoning techniques will be considered in order to avoid growth inducing
25
PAGE 305 Show Image
or public service impacts.
259. The requirement that new urban development be contiguous to existing development does not
necessarily mean that it must adjoin a city boundary. The adequacy of public facilities to
support urban development proposals and the need to annex for such services would be
evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
260. The County's proposed Urban Area for the City of El Centro does not extend as far to the
northeast as the City's Sphere of Influence. This was done to preserve agriculture in the area
for at least the next five years. The County recognizes that a City's Sphere of Influence may
extend well beyond planned Urban Areas and that both Urban Areas and Spheres of Influence
can be changed as development extends outward from existing city limits.
261. Comment noted. Approval of the Interstate 8/State Route 111 Specific Plan would require
the preparation of an EIR. Among other issues, this EIR would be required to address the
concerns raised in this comment.
262. Comment noted. The SR-i 11 Corridor SPA is described in the EIR under the Increased
Development Alternative and, as such, would not be adopted under the proposed Plan
Update. The EIR also describes the Increased Development Mternative as less
environmentally acceptable that the proposed Plan Update or the Increased Agriculture
Alternative. The EIR also indicates that development of the SR-i 11 Corridor SPA would
contribute to significant and unmitigable impacts associated with the loss of Important
Fannland in the County and with traffic/circulation along SR-ill. It is expected that
development of the SR-I 11 Corridor SPA would have fiscal and economic impacts on
existing commercial establishments in El Centro. Under CEQA (Section 15131), an EIR for
the SR-i 11 Corridor SPA would need to discuss the potential economic and social
consequences of this development project in terms of whether it would take business away
from existing downtown and other commercial areas in El Centro and thereby cause business
closures and eventual physical deterioration.
263. Since preparation of the Draft EIR, the number of contracts has been reduced to ten. The
contracted stations include Each contracted station has a fire chief; four of these chiefs are
paid and six are volunteer. The text in the Final EIR has been revised as follows:
Fire protection for the remalnder of the incorporated area of the County is provided on a
contract basis through the County of Imperial. Currently, the County has 10 contracts.
These contracts are with Palo Verde, Winterhaven, Holtville, Brawley, Calipatria, Niland
Westmorland, Salton City Community Services, Salton Sea Beach, and Ocotillo. The County
provides the contractor with the vehicles and equipment. Each station has a chief; the chiefs
at Holtville, Brawley, Calipatria, and Niland are pald and the others are volunteers, as is
most of the remaining fire fighting force. Each of the cities within the Imperial County also
have fire departments to serve their incorporated areas.
264. Please see response to Comment 263 regarding contracted fire stations. With regard to the
contract with Gold Cross Ambulance for Emergency Medical services, this is already stated
26
PAGE 306 Show Image
on pages 111-149 and 111-167. The comment regarding inadequate response time to rural
dwelling units and inadequate water supplies is noted; the EIR states that the average
response time is 8 to 10 minutes.
265. Please see responses to Comments 277-286
City of Imperial - March 5, 1993
266. The Mitigation Monitoring Program provided in Ap~ix F compiles and summarizes the
initigation measures recommended throughout the E~ The program has been prepared to
facilitate monitoring of the approved mitigation rneasures by the County.
26?. The mitigation measures recommended in the Draft EIR to minimize the alr quality impacts
of burning agricultural waste are regarded as adequate, particui~~ly considering that the
General Plan and Agricultural Element prormote the continued prominence of the agriculture
industry in the life and economy of the County.
268. Comment noted.
269. Copies of these studies will be circulated to the City of Imperial for projects proposed within
the City's Sphere of Influence.
270. The restriction refers to land designated as Agriculture. In cases where a city's Sphere of
Influence contains land designated as Agriculture, the five-year restriction would apply unless
the area is annexed at an earlier date.
271. Comment noted. The discussion on the significant impacts resulting from the conversion of
Important Farmland after termination of the five-year protection period is considered
adequate. Any such significant impacts, such as the proposed conversion of an area that
exceeds 100 acres of Important Farmland, would require mitigation measures to reduce such
impacts below a level of significance.
272. The impacts resulting from development that does not adjoin at least ore side of an existing
urban use are detailed in the discussion of "L~froggir~g Patterns of Non-Agricultural
Developments in Agricultural Areas" in the Agriculture section of the BIR.
273. Mitigation measures in this EIR are appropriate ~ prevent significant aircraft noise impacts
resulting from actions in accordance with the ge~ral plan. Thus, as stated in the EIR,
acoustical analyses are required for all discretionary projects within the existing or proposed
60 dB CNEL airport noise contours.
The types of aircraft which use the airports are oiscLlssed in the Airport Land Use
Compatibility Plan, Imperial c()uiuy Airpo~& (AL UC?'. The following statement has been
added to the discussion of "Aircraft Noise" ~nder the Existing Conditions section":
"Descriptions of each airport, the aircraft operations, and the noise impacts are discussed in
27
PAGE 307 Show Image
the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plait, Imperial Cowuy Airports (ALUCP 1991)."
The Noise Element of the General Plan describes the use of landscaped berms as noise
barriers. The mitigation of roadway noise by trees, shrubbery or grass is generally
ineffective, except in cases of dense, deep stands of trees or wide areas of thick shrubbery
or thick grass.
274. Comment noted.
275. A mitigation measure has been added to the Final EIR to require that all project-specific
traffic studies be distributed for comment to any city where an arterial continues into a city's
Sphere of Influence.
El Centro Chamber of Commerce - March 17, 1993
276. Please see response to Comment 262.
El Centro Regional Medical Center - March 22, 1993
277. Growth that can be accommodated under the General Plan would ultimately impact the El
Centro Regional Medical Center. However, the growth identified in the General Plan is only
minimally located within the jurisdiction of the County; most growth will be within existing
incorporated cities. Potential mitigation measures include an expansion of the Hospital
District and municipal bonds.
278. Mitigation measures for increased health care demand include municipal bonds and
annexation of adjacent developments in order to increase El Centro's tax base. while not
a mitigation measure, plans for an expanded hospital district can be brought to the voters and
to LAFCO.
279. Comment noted. Air quality issues are in the forefront of the Air Pollution Control District's
(APCDs) goals and objectives (see the 1991 Air QuaiUy Attainment Plan). Air quality
concerns are not within the jurisdiction of county governments and are therefore not regularly
addressed in county general plans.
280. Comment noted.
281. Additional information on population and growth rates has been incorporated within the Final
EIR in response 230. Information is also available in the adopted Housing Element which
is not a part of this General Plan Update.
28
PAGE 308 Show Image
282. The following two paragraphs have been added to the discussion of Health Care in the Final
EIR:
Clinicas de Salud del Pueblo offers three comprehensive health care centers to the residents
of Imperial County: the main facility in Brawley, and two satellite centers in Calexico and
Blythe. The Clinicas are flinded through state and federal resources. The Brawley facility
is equipped with 14 exam rooms, the Calexico facility with 11 exam rooms, and the Blythe
clinic with 9 exams rooms. Currently there are nine clinic physicians, each holding flill staff
privileges at most community hospitals in the region.
The Imperial County Department of Health Services also offers health programs and clinic
services to County residents. Programs range from Well Baby and Immunization clinics to
Emergency Medical Services. The maln facility is located at 935 Broadway in El Centro.
Satellite clinics include the Brawley Lion's Center at 225 A Street, and the Calexico
Community Center at 707 Dool Avenue. Information on various programs offered
throughout the County can be obtained by contacting the Department of Health Services.
283. This change has been made in the Final EIR as requested. Please also see response to
Comment 278.
284. Please see response to Comment 278.
285. Mitigation measures to improve air quality are included in the Air Quality section of the EIR
Environmental Analysis, and in the APCD 1991 Air QualiJy Aaainment Plan. Further APCD
planning with respect to improving PM10 air quality is anticipated.
286. The Water Element of the General Plan, Goal 4, encourages the County to implement
ordinances and policies that assure the safety of ground and surface waters. These
ordinances and policies should address the specific measures to minimize urban runoff
contribution to water quality degradation.
Sierra CIub~ San Diego Chapter - March 22, 1993
287. "Imperial Valley" refers to a geographical area determined by past and ongoing geological
processes, and "Imperial County" refers to a governmental administrative subdivision of the
State of California. The Imperial Valley, approximately 50 miles wide and 70 miles long,
lies within the Salton Trough in the central part of the County. The Salton Trough is a
northwest trending basin containing the complex zone of interaction between the Pacific and
North American plates. South of the international border, the trough or basin that borders
the Imperial Valley is known as the Mexicali Valley, and north of the northern County
boundary the Imperial Valley is bordered by the Coachella Valley. Imperial Valley is
bordered on the west by the Coyote and Fish Creek Mountains, and on the east by the
Imperial Sand Dunes and the Chocolate and Cargo Muchacho Mountains.
29
PAGE 309 Show Image
288. The General Plan Update, which incorporates minor revisions based upon input received
during public review of the Draft EIR, is considered to be an adequate, complete, and
internally consistent General Plan under California State law.
289. Some of the goals of the General Plan Update differ from the goals of the APCD, which are
stated in the Air Quality Attainment Plan (AQAP). These differences are not flaws in either
the General Plan Update or the AQAP. Policies and regulations are often, perhaps usually,
the result of persuasion, negotiation and compromise. The Land Use Element has been
revised to acknowledge the need to recognize the AQAP in land use planning. It should also
be noted that the AQAP strategies related to Lend Use apply to both the unincorporated areas
of the County and the incorporated cities, probably more to the latter. Application of these
strategies within the County will occur principally in review of proposed developments and
Specific Plans that contain commercial and urban components.
The Air Quality Attainment Plan includes two measures proposed for flirther study: R-1,
Agricultural Burning, would study alternatives to burning, such as soil incorporation,
composting, landfilling and waste-toenergy conversion. R-2, Agricultural Pesticide Use,
will build upon current statewide efforts to identi~ control measures and draft a model rule.
The following two Objectives have been added to the Land Use Element:
Objective 9.4. Implement a review procedure for land use planning and
discretionary project review which includes the Imperial County Air Pollution
Control District.
Objective 9.5. Incorporate the strategies of the Imperial County Air Quality
Attainment Plan (AQAP) in land use planning decisions. The policies stated
in the 1991 AQAP include L-1, Planning Compact Communities; L-2,
Providing for Mixed Land Use; L-3, Balancing Jobs and Housing; L4,
Circulation Management.
290. The Housing Element is not part of the proposed General Plan Update due to its previous
review and adoption by the Board of Supervisors in 1990. Although Housing Element
information was utilized in the General Plan Update, it is standard practice to update only
those Elements which are substantially out of date. A period of five years or more represents
a substantial period.
291. The preparers of the EIR disagree with this comment. It is currently an existing condition
that the two large-scale regional landfills are proposed and it would not be advantageous to
delete discussion related to these proposed projects from the EIR.
292. The biological resources maps provided in the EIR, with minor revisions that have been
made in response to previous comments (for example, see responses to Comments 16, 66,
and 67), are regarded as adequate for this program-level EIR. The biological resources
figures were compiled in consultation with staff biologists of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the State Department of Fish and Game.
30
PAGE 310 Show Image
Additional environmental review will be required for projects located in areas where potential
significant impacts may occur to sensitive biological resources.
293. Groundwater and other water issues are of great concern to the County of Imperial. These
concerns are reflected in the goals, objectives, and policies within the General Plan restricting
land uses in limited groundwater basins, the requirement of a Conditional Use Permit for all
wells, the preparation of a Water Element, and the analysis of water qualitylavallability
issues in the EIR. Regarding the Ocotillo-Coyote Wells groundwater basin, the EIR and
General Plan reviewed numerous technical studies on groundwater and interviewed both
concerned citizens and agency officials directly involved with groundwater issues. Based on
these reviews and interviews it was concluded that the 1977 U.S. Geological Survey study
provided the best baseline data available for making land use and groundwater assumptions
and decisions. Although this study served as the baseline, more recent studies were taken
into account. Based on all technical data provided to the County to date, the Ocotillo-Coyote
Wells groundwater basin is not in overdraft. Nevertheless, the result of this research was
a plan to substantially reduce the proposed and alternative land use projects in an expanded
OcotillolNomirage Community Area. This research included extensive meetings with the
Ocotillo/Nomirage Community Group to create a plan which provided for growth but
sensitive to potential groundwater impacts. The development standards under Community
Area within the I-and Use Element reflect this groundwater sensitivity. The groundwater
plan developed for the Ocotillo/Nomirage Community Area developed in collaboration with
community members resulted in conservative yet realistic land use designations which include
only passive recreation; no agriculture; and neighborhood commercial uses in the Ocotillo-
Coyote Wells groundwater basin.
An area of concern not addressed in detail is the Hot Mineral SpalBombay Beach area which
requires imported water from Riverside County. This is an area that, due to the desires of
the citizenry, no changes have been made to the General Plan. However, based on standard
practice of the Planning Department and requirements of the added mitigation measures, no
large-scale development will be approved unless an adequate water supply can be
demonstrated. It should be noted that the Coachella Valley Water District, the water agency
serving this area, has the capacity to service fiature growth.
As indicated above, due to the sensitivity of the groundwater issue, the County of Imperial
requires all proposed wells in their jurisdiction to receive a Conditional Use Permit and be
subjected to environmental review, thereby allowing for flirther restrictions on a project-by-
project basis if it is demonstrated that groundwater availability or quality impacts are
anticipated. Any development requiring the use of well water will therefore require an
analysis of potential impacts to groundwater availability and quality as part of the
environmental review process. To ensure that additional study will be required before any
land use project that impacts groundwater is approved, the following mitigation measure has
been added to the Water Quality section of the Final EIR: "All discretionary development
projects located within limited groundwater basins require a groundwater availability/quality
study, conducted by a licensed professional as part of the environmental review process to
ensure an adequate water supply to both the proposed project and existing users. This
analysis will include potential effects to watersheds and recharge areas to ensure that no long-
31
PAGE 311 Show Image
term impacts to groundwater basins will occur. N
The Water Element is an optional element not required by State law. This Element was
reformatted to ensure consistency with all other elements in the General Plan Update. The
Water Element is considered adequate.
It should be noted that the analysis in the EIR related to water issues is program oriented and
reflects the understanding that the County of Imperial is utilizing numerous planning tools
to address groundwater, including a comprehensive groundwater study of Imperial County
by James M. Montgomery Engieeers, Inc., scheduled to be completed later this year.
Detailed groundwater basin information was not deemed necessary at a program level
analysis to determine the potential environmental impacts or mitigation measures for
groundwater.
294. The General Plan and DEIR take into consideration all BLM and adjacent County plans. The
proposed General Plan is considered consistent with those plans. This conclusion has been
reached after coordination with management staff at BLM and review of San Diego County
and Riverside County General Plans. The DEIR takes into consideration all sensitive
environmental resources and Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) in particular,
and illustrates potential impacts to the sensitive resources and identifies a series of
programmatic mitigation measures on pages 111-130 through 111-133 for both direct and
indirect impacts. Several of these measures are also stated within the General Plan as policy
statements including the Biological Resource Conservation policy and programs. In addition,
the Recreation/Open Space [~d Use category, where most of these resources exist, has been
designed to require preservation of sensitive resources through both development standards
and the environmental review process. The entire intent of the General Plan Update is to
preserve these resources in conformance with other state and federal agencies. Please see
responses to Comments 46 and 59.
The approach to land use mapping in the General Plan Update is to identify the logical use
of property without focusing on land ownership in particular. In certain cases, such as with
BLM, it dictates a land use designation compatible for both private and public use. The
Recreation/Open Space is considered to be that designation in that it allows many levels of
recreation depending on environmental impacts and open space. Based on the number of
recent Federal land exchanges, it has been found that ownership can change for a variety of
reasons. Consequently, the Plan Update identifies logical uses to accommodate such potential
ownership or boundary changes.
The General Plan and EIR promote the preservation of the flat-tailed horned lizard, desert
tortoise, and other sensitive species. In addition to the policies of the General Plan and
mitigation measures in the EIR, projects proposed in flat-tailed horned lizard and desert
tortoise habitats would require environmental review including Section 7 Consultation with
the USFWS. Such projects would include the development or expansion of agricultural
activities in these habitats or in areas within ACECs.
32
PAGE 312 Show Image
295. The Increased Development Alternative is considered realistic and is based on numerous local
requests for development. This alternative, as proposed, would have significant
environmental effects and is not the recommended alternative. In regards to the Ocotillo-
Coyote Wells groundwater basin, the impact on the Ocotillo/Nornirage Community Area
could be significant. However, mitigation measures have been identified and would reduce
such potential impacts below a level of significance. A premise for the Increase
Development Alternative was that all areas could be served by imported water.
296. The proposed General Plan Update is based on the protection of limited environmental
resources as a principal concern. Also, the EIR determined that the proposed Plan Update
would mitigate impacts to sensitive environmental resources such as those in "Areas of
Critical Environmental Concern" and other sensitive habitats. A key reason for concluding
this is the high priority placed on environmental issues under both the Land Use Element and
the Conservation and Open Space Element. This emphasis includes the identification of
sensitive resources and policies to preserve those resources under Implementation Programs
and Policies. One example would be the establishment of Resource Conservation Areas
throughout the County with the requirement to flirther limit and reduce development.
Consequently, the proposed project is environmentally sensitive, and impacts to all
environmental resources are flilly mitigated below levels of significance.
The selection of the Increased Agriculture Alternative and the Increased Development
Alternative resulted from the effort to both reduce environmental impacts even flirther and
attain the project's objectives of plarming for and accommodating fliture growth in the
County. The alternatives were selected during the project scoping process, which included
input from various public agencies and the County-approved Ad Hoc Committee. These
alternatives accommodate all projected growth for the County please see response to
Comment 230) and all goals, objectives, programs, and policies of the proposed Plan Update
would be met through their implementation. As with the proposed project, these alternatives
were analyzed from a worst-case perspective in terms of their potential environmental
impacts. The Increased Agriculture Alternative was found to be the environmentally superior
alternative, primarily in that it protects the largest amount of Important Farmland.
It is important to note that whereas the Increased Agriculture and Increased Development
Alternatives are formally analyzed in the EIR as two alternatives, these alternatives were
designed in such a way as to allow the County to select from a multitude of alternative
projects. In essence, by adopting certain characteristics from each of the two formally-
presented alternatives, several alternative projects are at the County's disposal. As a simple
example, the County could adopt the increased Urban Area analyzed in the Increased
Development Alternative and the reduced number of Specific Plan Areas identified in the
Increased Agriculture Alternative. Of all alternatives that could be decided on by the
County, the Increased Development Alternative would be the least environmentally sensitive
(except for the No Project Alternative) as this alternative represents the most severe land use
conflicts of all. Any adopted alternative other than the Increased Development Alternative,
which, again, presents the worst-case analysis of its associated impacts, would entail reduced
environmental impacts.
33
PAGE 313 Show Image
297. Population figures for carrying capacity were developed as part of the General Plan Update
process and presented in numerous public meetings. Please see responses to Comments 230,
281, and 296.
298. Please see response to Comment 296.
299. Please see response to Comment 290.
300. The mitigation measures in the Draft EIR are appropriate to prevent significant environmental
impacts from occurring due to approval and implementation of the General Plan Update. In
response to comments received during public review of the DEIR and draft General Plan
Update, a few mitigation measures have been added to the Final EIR, as is customary in EIR
preparation. For new mitigation measures added to the Final EIR, see responses to
Comments 3, 20, 101, 147, 275, and 293. In all, the mitigation measures provided in the
Final EIR are adequate and will reduce potential impacts General Plan Update below levels
of significance.
It must be noted that CEQA allows for the development of a program-level EIR for broad-
level planning program such as a General Plan. Mitigation measures within Program EIRs
do not need to be specific in nature, but may provide for mitigation programs that can be
implemented at a project level. Under CEQA, Program EIRs usually lead to project-level
EIRs where substantive mitigation measures are required. Although the General Plan Update
EIR contains numerous project-level mitigation measures, it is not always possible to
anticipate the precise mitigations that will be required to reduce impacts resulting from future
proposed projects since the exact types of uses themselves are unknown and cannot be
anticipated. Under the General Plan Update and Final EIR, future projects in the County that
may have the potential to result in significant environmental impacts will require additional
environmental evaluation and public review.
301. Due to the program level nature of the General Plan, detailed maps on the specifics of land
ownership throughout the County are not warranted. It was also decided early in the General
Plan Update process that since land ownership changes regularly at the Federal, State, local,
and private levels, ownership would not be a useful variable for determining land use
designations. In any case, detailed ownership maps are already available as public documents
at the BLM office in El Centro and at numerous other agencies in the County. And as
pointed out in the comment, the most current ownership information is available for review
at the County Tax Assessor's Office in El Centro.
302. The Specific Plan Area designation for Felicity took into consideration both private and
public land when the boundaries were determined. The SPA designation actually offers
greater protection for those lands if they are to remain public by requiring a detailed Specific
Plan for development and preservation. The intent of the designation was to identify a
logical area for the ultimate development of a new town within the County. Please also see
response to Comment 301.
34
PAGE 314 Show Image
303. Indian Reservations in the County are discussed in the Cultural Resources section of the EIR.
It should be noted that the precise boundaries of Indian Reservations in the County are
accurately provided on numerous publicly-avallable maps, including BLM's Surface
Management Status maps. The Indian Reservations were also involved in the environmental
review process for the General Plan Update. It should be noted that the location of Bard is
suitably identified in Figure 2, the Imperial County Vicinity Map. The comment regarding
the "Open Space Element" is not understood.
304. Please see response to Comment 294.
305. Please see response to Comment 294.
306. Please see response to Comment 303.
307. Please see responses to Comments 66, 67, 294, and 386. The biological resources figures
provided in the EIR, with minor revisions, are regarded as adequate.
308. Please see response to Comment 294. The General Plan and DEIR take into consideration
all BLM plans and the General Plans of San Diego and Riverside Counties.
309. Additional discussion on the cumulative impacts of potential ft~ture projects, including the two
proposed regional landfills, has been added to the Final EIR. It should be noted that
potential landfill impacts are not evaluated in detail in this Program EIR. Project-level EIRs
will be required to address such matters. According to Curtin, 1990: "Program EIRs under
CEQA should contain broad, general environmentai analyses that can serve as information
bases that agencies can consult in ultimately approving subsequent projects within the
program." Please also see responses to Comments 136, 291, and 293.
310. Please see response to Comment 294.
311. Please see response to Comment 288.
312. The DEIR did not discuss Community Area and Urban Area Plans because they have not yet
been formulated. It was determined at the outset of the General Plan Update process that the
first and most logical priority would be to identify general land use designations, associated
development intensities, and land use boundaries. During the process, it became clear that
these plans would have to be adopted after adoption of the General Plan Update. The
Community Area Plans will be implemented through a General Plan Amendment and the
Urban Area Plans will be implemented through a Zoning Ordinance Update. All of the plans
will be subject to public review and environmentai analysis. The statement in the draft Land
Use Element that the Urban Area and Community Area Plans are contained in Appendix A
was an error and has been corrected.
313. This comment is inaccurate. Every environmental issue addressed in the EIR (Land Use,
Agriculture, Traffic/Circulation, Noise, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Public
Services/Safety, Air Quality, Visual Resources, Water Quality, Geology/Soils, Flood
35
PAGE 315 Show Image
Control/Hydrology) focuses on the proposed General Plan Update's effects on the existing
physical conditions in the actual environment in which the Plan Update will operate. The
existing "on the ground" conditions related to every environmental issue are adequately
detailed in the EIR at a programmatic level, and the impact analysis associated with every
environmental issue emphasizes the physical impacts on the existing environment. In
addition, each environmental analysis section of the EIR also describes any inconsistencies
between the proposed General Plan Update and the existing 1973 General Plan.
314. The potential impacts associated with aquaculture are adequately reviewed in the General
Plan Update. These issues are not reiterated in the EIR because they are considered to be
adequately mitigated by policies, goals, and objectives presented in the General Plan Update.
31~ Comment noted. The EIR and Agricultural Element have been revised to clarify these
projected population estimates. It must be noted that population projections are inevitably
best-guess estimates based upon recent growth rates, which may in fact not be indicative of
future growth patterns. Future population levels are influenced by innumerable demographic,
economic, political and other factors.
316. Please see response to Comment 293.
317. The potential impacts associated with the whitefly are adequately reviewed in the General
Plan Update. These issues are not reiterated in the EIR because they are considered to be
adequately mitigated by policies, goals, and objectives presented in the General Plan Update.
318. The comment is correct in that there is no Air Quality Element in the General Plan Update.
The Cumulative Impacts, Air Quality section has been revised in the Final EIR to correct this
error. Regarding the comment on inconsistencies between the Land Use Element and the
1991 Air Quality Attainment Plan, please see response to Comment 289.
319. The preparation and circulation of a Subsequent or Supplement EIR for the General Plan
Update is not warranted under Public Resources Code 21166 or Sections 15162 and 15163
of the CEQA Guidelines. The Final EIR incorporates only minor revisions made to the Draft
EIR based upon comments and recommendations received during the public review period
of that document. No significant new information has been presented or added to the EIR,
and no major revisions have been made. More specifically, no new significant effects have
been identified, no existing significant effects have been found to be substantially more
severe, no mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in
fact be feasible and would substantially reduce a significant effect, and no mitigation
measures or alternatives that were not previously considered would substantially lessen a
significant effect. Please also see responses to Comments 66, 67, 288, 289, 290, 293, 294,
296, 300, 309, 312.
320. The EIR, with minor revisions, is an adequate program-level EIR. Please see response to
Comment 319.
321. Please see response to Comment 288.
36
PAGE 316 Show Image
322. Please see responses to Comments 230, 293, 294, 296, 297, and 319.
323. Please see response to Comment 296. Although beyond the scope of the General Plan
Update, potential impacts from Mexicali are recognized and can oflly be mitigated by
implementation of comprehensive air quality plans such as those identified under the
mitigation measures section in the EIR for the County of Imperial.
324. Please see response to Comment 294.
325. Please see responses to Comments 294 and 301.
326. Please see response to Comment 312.
327. Please see response to Comment 293 and 319.
328. The EIR, with minor revisions, is an adequate program-level EIR. Please see response to
Comment 319.
329. The Summary section of the EIR, with minor revisions, adequately summarizes the proposed
project and its consequences as required by CEQA (Guidelines 15123). As described by
CEQA, the length of the Summary normally should not exceed 15 pages. The Summary in
the DEIR is 16 pages and, more importantly, provides a comprehensive but brief overview
of the impacts, mitigation measures, and alternatives to the proposed project.
With regard to the comment on Special Purpose Facilities, the EIR adequately addresses and
analyzes this land use designation. With regard to other issues raised in this comment, please
see responses to Comments 294 and 301.
330. Suitable off-site replacement land for agricultural land impacted by future development
projects, including Specific Plan Areas, could include either currently undeveloped land or
land that is no longer cultivated. In any case, any proposed replacement land would be
subject to environmental review as a condition of approval of a Specific Plan or other
proposed project. This project-level review would identi~ the precise impacts to agricultural
land and would recommend mitigation measures that, in themselves, do not result in
significant environmental impacts. After termination of the five-year restriction period of the
conversion of agricultural land, any significant impacts such as the proposed conversion of
an area that exceeds 100 acres of Important Farmland will require mitigation measures to
reduce such impacts below a level of significance.
With regard to the mitigation measure that requires a signed statement from property owners
that they will not be indirectly impacted by the conversion of adjacent agricultural land to
non-agricultural uses, this legally binding agreement would only apply to the existing
property owners who sign. Any subsequent owners of agricultural property adjacent to non-
agricultural uses would presumably purchase that property with the knowledge and
understanding that nearby agricultural operations may be indirectly impacted by the adjacent
development.
37
PAGE 317 Show Image
331. The statement on 54 relative to no adverse impacts refers to ".. no adverse circulation
impacts..." emphasis added.) Discussions on SA, S-S and 5-7 acknowledge potential noise
and biological resource impacts. As described in the EIR, each new roadway or roadway
widening project must undergo a project-level environmental analysis in order that the project
is designed to avoid, minimize and mitigate potential adverse impacts to the maximum extent
possible.
Discussion of railroad and bicycle travel is not required in a Circulation Element.
332. Responses to the five comments under "4. Noise" are as follows:
1. Comment noted.
2. The proposed Mesquite L~dfill, while not mentioned by name in the Land Use
section, is included in the discussion of the Special Purpose Facility designation. Discussion
of new rall lines is not required in discussions of circulation.
3. It is assumed the comment refers to pages 5-5 and 54. Potential impacts from the
fliture development of SR-7 and SR-86, while not called by name in the Summary, are
discussed in the Traffic/Circulation section of the Environmental Analysis.
4. Industrial noise sources are discussed in the Noise section of the EIR. The definition
of industrial noise sources has been expanded to include mining and sand and gravel
operations. The paragraph under "Industrial Sources" has been revised as follows:
Industrial sources include manufacturing, mining, utility and similar enterprises. These
activities often emit noise which may impact sensitive receptors in the area of the industrial
operation. Existing major manufacturing sites within Imperial County are generally located
away from concentrations of sensitive receptors. These include a gypsum plant in Plaster
City, Holly Sugar and Calcot between Imperial and Brawley, and geothermal power plants
in the southeast Salton Sea, Heber, and East Mesa areas. Additional geothermal plants are
planned. More detalled descriptions of the geothermal plants may be found in the
Geothermal and Transmission Element of the General Plan. Descriptions and locations of
the mining sites may be found in the Conservation and Open Space Element of the General
Plan. Industrial activities often entall the ingress and egress of cars and heavy trucks; thus,
they will contribute to roadway noise sources on roads used for plant access.
In addition, the following mitigation measure has been added to the Noise section of the Final
EIR:
Roadway Noise - new industrial, commercial and residential development.
Acoustical analysis of development projects shall include the investigation of the
potential for the project to cause significant noise impact to sensitive receptors along
project access roadways.
38
PAGE 318 Show Image
5. The following statement, which is part of the Draft General Plan Update Noise
Element, has been added to Summary section of the Final EIR: wWhere acoustical analysis
indicates the potential for conflict with the County noise standards or for significant noise
impact, mitigation measures, as described in the Noise Element of the General Plan, should
be considered and incorporated into the project.
333. Please see responses to Comments 292, 294, and 329.
334. Please see responses to Comments 329 and 332.4.
335. This comment refers to the Summary section of the EIR; additional information on impacts
to water quality, including groundwater quality, is provided in Section III-J. As stated in the
Land Use Element, Ocotillo/Nomirage has minimum lot size of 1 dwelling unit per acre to
4 dwelling units per acre. Mitigation measures for watersheds include not allowing large
scale development if an adequate supply of water cannot be proved. Please also see response
to Comment 293.
336. Please see response to Comment 329.
337. Please see response to Comment 329. The discussion on page 5-13 of the EIR is a summary
of measures identified in the Environmental Analysis portion of the report. Reclalmed water,
although today considered financially infeasible, should be considered for the future in areas
requiring now non-potable water for irrigation. Please also see response to Comment 293.
338. Please see response to Comment 294.
339. Please see responses to Comments 293 and 295.
340. Evaluation of the No Project Alternative is required under CEQA (CEQA Guidelines 15126
(d).). Please also see response to Comment 296.
341. The General Plan Update states in the I~nd Use Element that this plan does not have
jurisdiction over federal, state, Indian, or local agency lands. However, due to the dynamic
changes in ownership boundaries, it was deemed appropriate to create a plan of land uses for
the entire County illuminating current jurisdiction. The approach presented in the proposed
General Plan Update is one of compatibility with existing agencies for overall land uses while
assuming compatibility with adjacent agency lands in case property is converted to private
ownership in the fliture.
342. Comment noted.
343. Comment noted.
344. As indicated in the EIR, the Specific Plan Area designation is applied where a Specific Plan
must be approved prior to development. Land within this category usually has environmental
constraints or unique land use concerns or opportunities which require special land use and/or
39
PAGE 319 Show Image
design cofltrol. Suitable areas also include lands proposed for large-scale urban development,
natural resource protection, historic preservation, or other use requiring more detailed
planning than would typically be required by the County Zoning or Subdivision Ordinances
(`)EIR, 111-13). The Specific Plan Areas identified in the EIR are adequately addressed by
the EIR which, again, is a program-level document. The EIR also states repeatedly that
project-specific environmental review will be required as a condition of approval of a Specific
Plan.
345. Comment noted.
346. Comment noted.
347w. Please see response to Comment 344.
348. Comment noted. The EIR contains a thorough Project Description.
349. Please see responses to Comments 309 and 344.
350. Please see response to Comment 344.
351. Comment noted. Please see response to Comment 66. The biological resources figures were
compiled in consultation with staff biologists of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the
Bureau of Land Management, and the State Department of Fish and Game. These figures,
with minor revisions, are regarded as adequate.
352. Please see response to Comment 312.
353. Please see response to Comment 301, 303, and 341.
354. The EIR adequately illustrates the locations of areas designated as Government/Special
Public, which is the designation that includes military areas. Military facilities are also
indicated in Figure 6 of the ILand Use Element. Please also see response to Comment 294.
355. Please see response to Comment 294.
356. Please see response to Comment 294.
357. Please see response to Comment 302.
358. Please see response to Comment 303.
359. Please see response to Comment 301.
360. Please see response to Comment 301.
361. Please see responses to Comments 301 and 303.
40
PAGE 320 Show Image
362. Comment noted. Section 15124(a) of the CEQA Guidelines states that "the precise location
and boundaries of the proposed project shall be shown on a detailed map, preferabty
topographic. The location of the project shall also appear on a regional map (italics added).
Section 15124 also states that the project description "should not supply extensive detail
beyond that needed for evaluation and review of the environmental impact." The location
and boundaries of the proposed project, i.e., the County of Imperial General Plan Update,
are clearly and adequately delineated on Figure 1 regional Location Map) and Figure 2
vicinity Map). Showing the proposed project, which again is evaluated by the EIR on a
program level, on 7.5 Minute Series topographic maps would require approximately 70 maps
and would not be desirable or advantageous.
363. Please see response to Comment 293.
364. The EIR incorrectly referenced the inclusion of a L~d Use Map in the General Plan and has
been revised to indicate that the I~ Use Map is associated with the General Plan. The
Land Use Map has been and will be available to the public at the County of Imperial
Planning Department.
365. Please see response to Comment 312.
366. Please see response to Comment 290.
367. Please see response to Comment 290.
368. The Draft EIR adequately describes the environmental setting of the County prior to -
analyzing the impacts that would occur to each environmental issue under implementation of
the General Plan Update. Importantly, details on the environmental setting of the County are
provided under the Existing Conditions sections of the various technical issues evaluated in
the Environmental Analysis chapter of the EIR. The General Plan Update itself also
describes, in considerable detail, the environmental setting of the County under the "Existing
Conditions" of each Element. The impacts described in the EIR, taking into account minor
revisions that incorporate input received from public review, are also adequate and emphasize
the physical impacts on the existing environment. Nevertheless, a generalized environmental
setting for the entire County has been added to the Project Description in the Final EIR to
describe even more succinctly and comprehensively the County's physical conditions. This
discussion describes the topics of landform, geology, soils, climate and air quality, water
resources, biology, cultural resources, and geothermal resources.
369. Please see response to Comment 368.
370. Please see response to Comment 67.
371. Please see responses to Comments 67 and 294.
372. Figure 10 was prepared based upon information provided by staff biologists of the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the State Department of Fish and
41
PAGE 321 Show Image
Game. The sources of information for the listing of sensitive plant species in Imperial
County in Table 13 are listed as a footnote in that table.
373. Please see response to Comment 66.
374. The sources of information for the listing of sensitive wildlife species in Imperial County in
Table 14 are listed as a footnote in that table. In response to Comment 14, the number of
bird species documented in the County is described as 378 in the Final EIR and
Conservation/Open Space Element. It should be noted that page 111-120 of the DEIR does
not indicate that there are over 350 bird species in the County but, rather, that there are over
350 bird species in the Salton Sea State Recreational Area. The comment regarding
consistency by the EIR preparers is noted.
375. Please see response to Comment 67.
376. Please see response to Comment 67.
377. Please see response to Co[UInent 65.
378. Please see response to Comment 67.
379. Please see responses to Comments 66 and 67. The historic and current ranges of the flat-
tailed horned lizard are adequately depicted in Figures 12 and 13.
380. Please see response to Comment 294.
381. The desert tortoise is adequately described in the EIR as being federally and state listed as
threatened. Any proposed project in desert tortoise habitat requires Section 7 Consultation
with the USFWS. The flat-tailed horned lizard is also adequately described in the EIR. To
the extent that more attention is placed on the flat-tailed horned lizard relative to the desert
tortoise, this is because the USFWS is currently preparing a listing package for the species,
and its listing would have a profound impact on filture development proposals within or
adjacent to designated habitat throughout the County. It should also be noted that, as
described in the Conservation Open Space Element sage 17), the surface Mining and
Reclamation Act (SMARA) requires mitigation of potentially adverse environmental impacts
generated by mineral extraction operations.
382. Similar descriptions on the flat-tailed horned lizard is provided in the EIR, particularly under
the "Sensitive Species and Habitats" discussion of Environmental Impacts in the Biological
Resources section. It should also be noted that in reaction to a preliminary draft of the DEIR
that attributed continuing declines of the flat-tailed horned lizard to destruction from, in part,
recreational developments such as off-highway vehicle activity, the Bureau of Land
Management responded that "habitat destruction and modification is largely due to agriculture
and urban development. Recreational impacts are relatively minor. There is not a significant
positive correlation between declining flat-tailed horned lizard populations and off-highway
vehicle use" (Ben Koski letter to Michael Gonzalez, January 11, 1993.
42
PAGE 322 Show Image
383. Please see response to Comment 27.
384. Please see response to Comment 16.
385. Figures 12 and 13 have been revised to clarify that the Mgodones Dunes are not mountains.
386. Comment noted. Figure 14 was prepared in consultation with staff biologists of the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of L~d Management, and the State Department of
Fish and Game. The figure is regarded as adequate.
387. Please see responses to Comments 294 and 386.
388. Please see response to Comment 386.
389. Please see responses to Comments 16 and 294.
390. Please see response to Comment 386.
391. Please see response to Comment 294.
392. Please see response to Comment 294.
393. Please see responses to Comments 294 and 344.
394. Please see responses to Comments 288 and 294.
395. Maps of watershed basins will not be included in the Program EIR. Please also see response
to Comment 293.
396. Although the General Plan and EIR identify a number of uses within the Recreation/Open
Space designation, they also identify a number of limitations including preservation of
sensitive environmental resources. L~guage has also been added to limit agriculture in
sensitive areas. Development exceeding 1 dwelling unit per 20 acres can only be done on
160 acres dr more with a Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report that shows no
impacts to groundwater and natural resources.
397. Please see response to Comment 313.
398. Please see responses to Comments 294 and 313.
399. The Resources Map has been added to the Conservation/Open Space Element and "RCAs"
has been changed to "Resource Areas" in the EIR.
400. Please see response to Comment 313.
401. Please see response to Comment 294.
43
PAGE 323 Show Image
402. Please see responses to Comments 301, 303, and 34w.
403. Comment noted. The information provided in Table I is the most current information
available and is appropriate for use in the EIR.
404. The limitation on the conversion of agricultLLral ia~~d use is based on previous studies
conducted by the State of California, the Urban Tend Instirute, and other public and private
agencies on the most effective approach to preserving farmlan& All recommendations on
agricultural have been reviewed for consistency with Ca[ifornia L~ Use law to assure flill
compliance and reasonable use.
405. The DEIR defines the Industry designation as iDeluding heavy manufacturing and industrial
uses. Heavy industry is detailed on page 37 of ~ Tend Use Element and specifically
mentions hazardous materials. The County Zoning Ordinance also requires a Conditional
Use Permit in the M-2 Heavy Manufacturing Zo~ for hazardous waste treatment or
incineration. This involves flirther environmental review, r~flcludjng review by state and local
agencies.
406. Please see response to Comment 294.
407. Comment noted.
408. Please see response to Comment 294.
409. Please see response to Comment 294.
410. Please see response to Comment 294.
411. Please see responses to Comments 294 and 341.
412. Comment noted. The statement in the EIR is ~t ~ard~ as misleading. The reference
refers to an allowance to permit clus~ring be~w 20 a~ lot size if 160 acres or more
planned under a Specific Plan. A Specific Plan wouid be ~Uowable if adequate water supply
is available, the development is recreation~n~ted and other environmental criteria are
flilfilIed under CEQA. Please also see responses to Comrr~nts 294 and 396.
413. Please see responses to Comments 294 and 341.
414. Comment noted. All relevant Federal plans were rev;~w~. See response to Comment 294.
415. Please see response to Comment 294.
416. Page 46 of the ~nd Use Element specifically &~s ~at ~~~~creational land uses within this
[Recreation/Open Space] category are limited tc rec~~aticnal ve~ic1e parks and uses which
consist primarily of outdoor facilities such as ~a:~S zhle~c fields, golf courses, swim and
tennis clubs, and off-road vehicle use areas. 1n~nsi~~ re~~ational development within this
44
PAGE 324 Show Image
category is prohibited in areas designated by B[~ as "Areas of Critical Environmental
Concern"." This land use category is therefore compatible with BLM Plans and no impacts
to biological and cultural resources are expected.
417. Please see responses to Comments 288 and 294.
418. Please see response to Comment 294.
419. Please see response to Comment 412.
420. The definition of Urban is based on development characteristics such as sewer, paved roads,
and sidewalks. Recreation/Open Space lands are seen as being rural in nature and not
requiring those urban features. Please also see response to Comment 294 and 412.
421. Please see response to Comment 344.
422. Please see response to Comment 290.
423. Housing information is provided in the previously adopted Housing Element. Seasonal
population changes in existing second home communities was not considered a significant
environmental concern.
424. Please see response to Comment 293.
425. Please see response to Comment 293.
426. Please see response to Comment 293.
427. Groundwater quality and quantity is adequately discussed in three major sections of the EIR:
the "Water Service and Availability" portion of the Public Services/Safety section, the
"Groundwater" portion of Water Quality section, and the "Groundwater" portion of the Flood
Control/Hydrology section.
428. Please see response to Comment 293.
429. Please see response to Comment 293.
430. Please see response to Comment 294.
431. Please see responses to Comments 293 and 344.
432. The Circulation and Scenic Element addresses all mandatory infrastructure components above
and beyond that required by State law. Air and railroad transportation are discussed under
Goals and Objectives and Implementation Programs and Policies. As allowed for in the
Office of Planning and Research Guidelines for General Plan preparation, other infrastructure
issues are discussed in the Land Use Element.
45
PAGE 325 Show Image
In addition, the Project Description of the EIR is regarded as accurate, consistent, and
adequate. The Project Description succinctly yet comprehensively describes the proposed
project, namely, the proposed General Plan Update. Importantly, the General Plan itself
comprises the proposed project. This document was widely circulated in association with the
Draft EIR during public review of the latter document. The reader who requires any detailed
detailed descriptions of the proposed project not provided by the EIR can easily obtain such
information from the General Plan Update. In response to Comment 368, the Project
Description has been revised to provide the reader with more background information on the
environmental setting of the County.
433. School facilities are adequately discussed in the EIR in accordance with the level of
information available and required for a programmatic evaluation. New growth will impact
all school districts and coordinated school facility master plans should be pursued to allow
long-term solutions rather than a project-by-project approach. The first step will be the
adoption of this General Plan Update with clear areas for development and restrictions on
ftiture residential growth outside Urban or Specific Plan Areas. Please also see responses
to Comments 290 and 432.
434. Please see response to Comment 282.
435. The 1992 Planning, Zoning and Development I-aws, Government Code 65302(f) states, "The
noise element...shall analyze and quanti~, to the extent practicable, . ..current and projected
noise levels..." (Italics added.) Noise contours have been analyzed and mapped to the extent
practicable for the current update effort. The EIR has been revised to specifically recognize
mining activities in the category of industrial noise sources please see response to Comment
332).
436. Comment noted. Please see response to Comment 432.
437. Comment noted. Please see response to Comment 432.
438. Comment noted. Please see response to Comment 432.
439. Comment noted. Please see response to Comment 432.
440. The EIR contains an adequate discussion of the present regional air quality situation. Air
Quality information includes the most recent information available from the Imperial County
Air Pollution Control District. Mitigation measures are programmatic in nature although the
land use strategies contained in the L~d Use Element promote a balance of development in
concentrated areas which will minimize air quality impacts. Although beyond the scope of
the General Plan Update, potential impacts from Mexicali are recognized and can only be
mitigated by the implementation of comprehensive air quality plans such as those identified
under the mitigation measures section.
441. Comment noted. Please see responses to Comments 16 and 294.
46
PAGE 326 Show Image
442. Soil erosion is adequately discussed in the Geology/Soils section of the EIR. Mitigation
measures to improve air quality are included in the Air Quality section of the EIR
Environmental Analysis, and in the APCD 1991 Air QUQUtY Aaainment PLan. Further APCD
planning with respect to improving PM10 air quality is anticipated. Please also see response
to Comment 332.4.
443. Please see response to Comment 293, 332.4, 368, and 432.
444. Please see responses to Comments 294 and 368.
445. The proposed mitigation measure referred to by this comment is considered appropriate. It
is conceivable that projects may be proposed that will be located in fire-prone areas within
the County.
446. Comment noted. Please see response to Comment 368.
447. Comment noted. Please see responses to Comments 289, 293, and 368.
448. Please see response to Comment 318.
449. The proposed mitigation measures referred to by this comment are considered appropriate
to prevent impacts to biological resources and to reduce significant impacts below a level of
significance. It must be noted that staff biologists of the USFWS, BL~, State Department
of Fish and Game, and other agencies were consulted extensively throughout the entire
process of preparing the EIR.
450. Please see response to Comment 294.
451. Please see response to Comment 293.
452. Please see response to Comment 293.
453. Please see response to Comment 293.
454. The impacts of biologically contaminated waters in the canals serving rural residential users
and the potential impacts from exposure to raw canal water as addressed by the EPA order
to lID are described on pages 111-156, 111-170, 111-174, and 111-197 of the DEIR. With
regard to the potential for algal or vegetative blooms in stagnant waters, this comment is
noted. Please also see response to Comment 189.
455. As indicated in the Draft EIR, adequate landfill facilities and sites exist within the County
to meet projected solid waste demands in the region sage VA). In addition, two large-scale
landfills are currently proposed in the County, and the County has requested that these
projects be designed to accommodate local solid waste as well as outof-area solid waste.
EIRs for those projects are currently in preparation.
47
PAGE 327 Show Image
456. The regional landfill will be required to be addressed in the County Integrated Waste
Management Plan, although its concurrent processing will only guarantee that it is a site to
be considered in the review process. The proposed landfills are discussed in existing
conditions sections since they are proposed projects and consideration of their impacts is
warranted. Please also see responses to Comments 291 and 309.
457. The mapping error referred to in this comment has been corrected in the Final EIR. In
particular, the eastern boundary of the Ocotillo/Nomirage Community Area has been moved
east to include all of the El Remate property.
458. Please see responses to Comments 294, 301, 303, and 341.
~5? Please see responses to Comments, 230, 293, and 295.
460. Please see response to Comment 329.
461. Comment noted. The EIR adequately addresses the environmental impacts that would occur
under implementation of the proposed General Plan Update.
462. Comment noted. The EIR adequately addresses the environmental impacts that would occur
under implementation of the proposed General Plan Update.
463. Please see response to Comment 293. The cumulative impacts on water quality issues are
adequately addressed in the Cumulative Impacts section.
464. Please see response to Comment 293. The cumulative impacts of growth in the
Ocotillo/Nomirage area are not expected to be significant.
465. Please see responses to Comments 104, 293, and 294.
466. Please see response to Comment 293.
467. Comment noted. All relevant Federal plans were reviewed. Please see response to
Comment 294.
468. Please see response to Comment 433.
469. The Existing Conditions and Environmental Impacts are adequately described and analyzed
for the possible significant environmental impacts that would occur with implementation of
the proposed General Plan Update. Please see responses to Comments 332.4 and 368.
470. Please see response to Comment 278.
471. Please see response to Comment 294.
472. Please see response to Comment 455.
48
PAGE 328 Show Image
473. Please see response to Comment 293.
474. Please see responses to Comments 293 and 314.
475. Please see responses to Comments 16, 32, 294, and 416. Impacts on sensitive wildlife by
projects proposed in sensitive habitats will need to be addressed and mitigated on a project-
specific level.
476. Please see response to Comment 475.
477. Please see responses to Comments 16, 32, 294, and 416.
47~ Please see responses to Comments 96, 99, 100, and 344.
479. The Right-to-Farm Ordinance informs existing and new property owners about the potential
inconveniences of living near agricultural operations and discourages the registration of
complaints against agricultural practices. The Ordinance directs that adjacent land users
should be prepared to accept such inconveniences or discomfort as a normal and necessary
aspect of living in a county with a strong rural character and an active agricultural sector.
The Ordinance generally makes it difficult for existing agricultural operations to be shut
down or otherwise affected due to the registration of complaints. Overall, the Ordinance
protects agricultural interests and reduces indirect impacts to agricultural operations.
480. Please see responses to Comments 294 and 330.
481. Please see responses to Comments 330 and 344.
482. Please see response to Comment 293. It is not expected that operations at Plaster City will
have significant impacts on the Ocotillo-Coyote Wells groundwater basin or on sensitive
biological resources in the region.
483. No other industrial activities besides US Gypsum are currently planned for the Plaster City
area.
484. The Final EIR, with minor revisions, adequately addressed water quality and quantity issues
in the Cumulative Impacts section. The detailed level of information requested in this
comment is beyond the scope of a program EIR. Please also see response to Comment 293.
485. The Existing Conditions and Environmental Impacts are adequately described and analyzed
for the possible significant environmental impacts that would occur with implementation of
the proposed General Plan Update. Please see responses to Comments 294, 332.4, and 368.
The detailed information requested by this comment is beyond the scope of this programmatic
EIR.
486. Please see response to Comment 454.
49
PAGE 329 Show Image
487. The intent of the Special Purpose Facility designation is to focus on land use conflicts. These
impacts are examined on page 111-25 of the DEIR.
488. Please see response to Comment 294.
489. Please see responses to Comments 66, 67, and 294.
490. Please see response to Comment 313.
491. Please see responses to Comments 313 and 330.
492. Please see response to Comment 294.
49j Please see responses to Comments 313 and 330.
494. The Desert Residential land use designation was perceived to promote development. The
new Recreation/Open Space designation promotes open space uses.
495. Please see response to Comment 344.
496. Please see responses to Comments 294, 313, and 330.
497. The EIR is consistent with a "program-level" analysis as defined by CEQA, and adequately
evaluates the potentially significant environmental impacts associated with implementation of
the General Plan Update in conjunction with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable fliture
projects in the surrounding region. The Cumulative Impacts section assumes ftill buildout
of the various land use classifications within the County, as well as within its sphere of
influence. This section has been augmented in the Final EIR to more specifically address the
impacts from two proposed regional landfills and several potential Specific Plan Areas.
These projects all require additional environmental review and, properly mitigated through
the preparation of project-specific EIRs, will not result in significant cumulative impacts.
498. Please see responses to Comments 341 and 497.
499. Please see responses to Comments 16, 32, 294, 381, and 416. The Cumulative Impacts
section has been revised to be more comprehensive.
500. Please see responses to Comments 293, 294, and 497. As described in the EIR, the
County's sphere of influence, in regard to cumulative impacts, extends for several miles from
the Imperial County line into the counties of San Diego and Riverside in California, the State
of Ariwna, and Mexico. It should also be noted that the Riverside County Planning
Department has been kept informed of the General Plan Update throughout the entire
environmental review process.
501. Please see response to Comment 309.
50
PAGE 330 Show Image
502. Please see responses to Comments 16, 32, 294, 381, and 416. The Cumulative Impacts
section has been revised to be more comprehensive.
503. Please see responses to Comments 16, 32, 294, 381, and 416. The Cumulative Impacts
section has been revised to be more comprehensive.
504. Please see response to Comment 309.
505. Please see response to Comment 309.
506. Please see response to Comment 309.
507. Please see response to Comment 309.
508. Please see response to Comment 309.
509. Comment noted.
510. Please see response to Comment 309.
511. Comment noted. Groundwater impacts are adequately discussed in the EIR and in previous
responses.
512. Commentnoted.
513. Please see responses to Comments 293, 294, and 309.
514. Please see responses to Comments 293, 294, 309, and 497.
515. Commentnoted.
516. Please see responses to Comments 293 and 294.
517. Please see responses to Comments 293, 294, 497, 309, and 497.
518. Please see responses to Comments 293, 294, and 497.
519. Please see responses to Comments 16, 32, 294, 381, 416, and 497. The Cumulative Impacts
section has been revised to be more comprehensive.
520. Comment noted.
521. Comment noted.
522. Please see response to Comment 294.
51
PAGE 331 Show Image
523. Comment noted.
524. Please see response to Comment 294.
525. Please see response to Comm